1998-06-033816REPS454501998-06-03Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous45454545Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Several members have asked me about the Italian band that is performing in Parliament House today, holding a public performance between 12 noon and 12.45. The band is performing at the request of His Excellency the Ambassador for Italy, Mr Giovanni Castellaneta. It is the band of the Bersaglieri Corps, which is an elite force of the Italian Army which was founded on 18 June 1936. The Bersaglieri began as an elite infantry branch of service of the Sardinian Army specialising in targeting and mobile warfare. At that time the armies travelled on foot. The Bersaglieri were trained especially for running. Some members will have noted that they performed apparently with distinction in Manuka last night. I gather that members, if they are interested, will find the performance most enjoyable and most interesting.Miscellaneous454509:32:004545Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That standing order 48A, adjournment and next meeting, be suspended for this sitting.I can advise the House that there have been discussions between the government and the Chief Opposition Whip (Mr Leo McLeay) to ensure that arrangements are made for the House to sit tonight. That is not the usual practice, but it will allow people the opportunity to speak on the large number of bills before the House. The proposal for tonight that has been agreed is that we would expect there to be neither divisions nor quorums so that there will be as little disturbance to the normal arrangements—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You can record that I am nodding, `Yes, yes, yes.'WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I hereby formally record the nodding of the Chief Opposition Whip. The penalty for breach of this agreement can be recorded tomorrow, if necessary.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4545r5504545Bill presented by Mr Bruce Scott, and read a first time.454509:34:004545Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.It is almost 80 years since an armistice restored peace after the war that the entire world thought would end all wars. Sadly, peace did not last. However, the Australian repatriation system, born at the same time to care for those who returned from the Great War, has not only endured but evolved to meet the ever changing needs of the veteran community. Today, we remain true to the goals of repatriation. More importantly, after eighty years we continue to improve the benefits provided to those Australians whose service deserves our ongoing recognition and practical assistance. This bill contains the most significant expansion of veterans' benefits for many years.From 1 January 1999, eligibility for a Repatriation Health Card—For All Conditions, better known as a gold card, will be extended to Australian veterans aged 70 or over who faced danger from hostile forces of the enemy during World War II. This will provide these veterans with the certainty and comfort that comes with knowing that their health needs will always be met. Full health care benefits were extended to World War I veterans 55 years after the end of that conflict. In providing this further extension of the gold card, Australian World War II veterans aged 70 years and over with World War II qualifying service will receive the same benefit 54 years after the end of that war.The criterion on which this extension of eligibility is based, is the `incurred danger' test, formally known as `qualifying service'. This qualifying service must have occurred during the `period of hostilities' as defined in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This covers the period from 3 September 1939 to 29 October 1945 inclusive. Qualifying service is also a criterion for service pension. Service pension was introduced in 1936 for those veterans who served in a theatre of war. It was intended to recognise that these veterans faced danger from hostile forces of the enemy and endured the deprivations, horror and hardship of war.World War II veterans with qualifying service are now an average age of 76. Their health care is a very high priority for this government. This initiative extends to an estimated additional 50,000 veterans a comprehensive range of health care services, including private patient hospital care. Other health services provided through the gold card include: choice of doctor; pharmaceuticals at a concessional rate; optical care; physiotherapy; dental care; podiatry care and products; and chiropractic services. Eligible veterans, that is, those aged 70 or over with World War II qualifying service, will be eligible for these benefits regardless of their level of income or assets and irrespective of whether they have war-caused disabilities or conditions.They will join an estimated 260,000 veterans who already have a gold card. Of the 50,000 additional veterans expected to become newly eligible for a gold card, approximately 17,000 are current holders of a white card—that is they are only eligible for health treatment for their war-caused disabilities and conditions. This initiative, costing around $500 million over four years, is an important means of recognising the willing sacrifice made by veterans in Australia's time of need and of expressing our profound gratitude for their courage and dedication.Extension of the gold card has been a top priority of the government and also of the Returned and Services League and other ex-service organisations. I am pleased that this initiative fulfils yet another coalition election commitment and further demonstrates the government's commitment to providing older Australians with greater security and stability. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Tariff Proposals454609:39:004546Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:Excise Tariff Proposal No. 3 (1998)Customs Proposal No. 4 (1998)The tariff proposals which I have just tabled contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Excise Tariff Proposal No. 3 (1998) and Customs Tariff Proposal No. 4 (1998) formally place before parliament, as required by law, proposed reductions in the excise and customs duty on aviation gasoline (avgas) which were notified in Commonwealth Gazette No. S225 on 21 May 1998 during the recent recess of parliament.The alterations contained in these proposals implement the reduction of 2.6 cents per litre in the rate of excise and customs duty on avgas with effect from 25 May 1998, as previously announced by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon. Mark Vaile MP. This will deliver significant savings in operating costs to the general aviation sector, as part of the federal government's plan to abolish the Airservices Australia component of the excise and customs duty on avgas.This reduction is the second instalment of Airservices Australia's pricing reforms and removes the element of the avgas duty relating to the provision of en-route services. The first instalment was delivered in 1997 with the introduction of location specific charges for rescue and fire fighting services.A proposed third instalment would see the removal of the remaining avgas duty directed to Airservices Australia—13.092 cents per litre—in conjunction with the introduction of location specific pricing for terminal navigation services from 1 July 1998. This is in line with the government's commitment to implement a fair and equitable system for recover ing the costs of providing air traffic services to the industry.The general aviation sector now pays about $17 million per year through the avgas levy for services that they do not necessarily use. By removing this tax, the government is ensuring that there is a transparency in the charges collected by Airservices Australia. The users who will benefit include private aircraft owners, sport aviation participants, flying training school operators, agricultural aircraft operators and smaller charter operators. The cut in fuel costs will mean real benefits to the private pilots and small operators. The government expects the reduction in duty to be passed on to consumers almost immediately through an equivalent drop in the price of avgas.Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the house.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Parliamentary Zone4547454709:43:004547Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLPMinister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 2 June 1998, namely: interim landscape works, Constitution Place, Parkes.Honourable members will be aware that on 13 February 1998 at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention held that week in the Old Parliament House—which you so capably chaired, Mr Speaker—the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) unveiled a dedication plaque to name Constitution Place. Constitution Place is the small park on the eastern end of the gardens around Old Parliament House. It is a match for Magna Carta Place, on the western end. The two areas therefore together commemorate the foundation of Westminster democracy and also the primary document establishing the Australian federation.Over the next 18 months the National Capital Authority will develop the landscaping of the area. As a temporary measure, the bronze dedication plaque, an explanatory sign and a timber park bench will be installed. Some minor landscaping works will also be undertaken.I was delighted when the Prime Minister agreed to name Constitution Place, both because it marked an important event, namely the 1998 Constitutional Convention, and also because it highlights in the very heart of the parliamentary triangle our most important legislative document—and one that has served us all so well. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4547r4854547Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.09:45:004547Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—When my presentation on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 was interrupted last night, I had just begun to comment on record keeping relief for benefits of no more than $5,000 for fringe benefits tax purposes. I had said that at first blush the amendments read quite well. However, they will at best have a very limited practical application, according to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA, because the $5,000 threshold equates to `little more than one modest motor vehicle' and will therefore exclude the majority of small businesses.Given that small businesses paid more than $1,475 million on motor vehicle benefits in the 1997 FBT tax year and the government's commitment to implement only those small business task force reforms which would not adversely affect the revenue, it is no wonder that it has opted for a threshold amount that will benefit only the smallest of small enterprises. But even those small business proprietors who will benefit from the exemption would be wise to heed the advice of those tax and accounting professionals who have expressed their concern about the nature of this exemption.The CCIWA has made clear its position that the failure of a small business operator to maintain accurate records `would constitute imprudent risk taking for most businesses'. Small business owners must understand that, regardless of whether they are required to submit FBT records to the tax office, the onus of proof will remain with the taxpayer to advise of any changes to levels of benefits provided. In other words, the administrative burden on small business owners will remain unchanged.These provisions do not achieve their stated purpose. Penalties for non-disclosure will continue and, if recent ATO audit practices are anything to go by, the tax office will be watching small businesses very carefully indeed. In the 16 April 1996 edition of the Australian Financial Review, Mr Ian Langford-Brown, Director of Taxation at the Institute of Chartered Accountants, noted that the Australian Taxation Office imposed almost $3 million in penalties on businesses for filing incorrect FBT returns in the previous year. It would be an act of commercial folly for a small business proprietor to fail to maintain current FBT record keeping standards despite government invitations to do the opposite.Also, as the Taxation Institute of Australia, the TIA, makes clear, while section 135H gives employers the right to `choose' how to work out the aggregate FBT amount, there are no parameters guiding them in their choices. No mention is made in either the bill or the explanatory memorandum of the time frame in which the choices could be made, how the choice should be made and if, once made, the choice can be varied. This is entirely unsatisfactory. I call on the responsible minister to explain how the government intends to correct this. Another point of concern for the Taxation Institute of Australia is section 135C(b), which provides that an employer will not have a base year if the FBT return was lodged late. The TIA insists that there should be no deferential treatment on the grounds of timing of lodgement.Schedule 13 of the bill provides for further changes in the franking of dividends by exempting companies and former exempting companies. The government has already sought to effect significant changes to dividend streaming and the franking of credits in a separate tax bill debated in this place earlier this year. The criticisms I have noted in respect of this schedule relate generally to a lack of clarity of definition in both the bill and the accompanying explanatory memorandum. As if tax professionals and taxpayers generally do not have a hard enough task in understanding and applying the terms of the existing taxation acts, their job is being made harder by new legislative measures like this one which are ambiguous and undermine certainty.The Taxation Institute of Australia has expressed its concern about the definition of what the government deems to be an exempting company and queries why the definition outlined in the explanatory memorandum fails to closely mirror the description of companies that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) announced in his May 1996 press release. The institute also suggests that the concepts of accountable shares, accountable interests and prescribed persons remain too broad and require clarification. As I see it, the government has two choices. It can make the necessary corrections now and improve the certainty of the measure or it can wait and be forced to bring on another technical corrections bill into this place further down the track. Surely the first option is the more sensible.While the coalition draftsmen are at it, they may care to address an inherent bias in the schedule. The government's support for a reform of the taxation system is premised on its being unnecessarily complicated, inefficient and inequitable—and it is right on every count. I take this opportunity to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) (Mr Miles) an in-built inequity in this measure.As it stands, a majority non-resident shareholder in a company will be entitled to a withholding tax exemption in respect of franking dividends. In contrast, a resident minority shareholder—that is, someone with five per cent of the total shares—is excluded from the benefits of franking credits on franked dividends simply because 95 per cent of the shares in the company of which it is a shareholder are held by a non-resident. The TIA argues that this inequity is `inexplicable' and that such an anomaly requires correction before the passage of this bill. I call on the government to commit itself to make the necessary corrections.The retrospective nature of the concessional treatment of exempted dividends also warrants closer inspection by the Treasurer and his junior ministers and parliamentary secretary. As the TIA correctly observes, while a reference was made by the minister in his May 1996 press release about the distribution of exempting credits to continuing non-resident shareholders by a former exempting company, it was not elaborated on. The TIA therefore believes it to be fair that the concessional treatment for exempted dividends be applied prospectively and the bill amended accordingly. My opposition to retrospective taxation measures is well recorded in this place and I concur with the TIA in their push for the prospective application of schedule 13.The government suggests that the objective behind these changes to the imputation system is to prevent tax minimisation by limiting the source of franking credits. However, it fails now, as it did in the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 to provide even the most basic of information on the financial impact of this initiative, and that is surely unacceptable. According to the explanatory memorandum, the effect of these changes to the franking of dividends by exempting and former exempting companies will result in `unquantifiable revenue gains to the extent of existing tax minimisation'.I am a little curious to understand how this might be so. It is now more than 12 months after the delivery of the 1997-98 budget measures, which saw the first tranche of changes in imputation, and the coalition is yet to provide any evidence to back up its claim that abuses in the imputation system undermine national revenue. I take this opportunity to remind members that imputation was introduced principally to improve the efficiency of our domestic capital market. The fact that up to 35 per cent of franking credits in Australia are not used implies that the Australian market is only two-thirds as efficient as it could be. Up to 35 per cent of franking credits remain unused because the shareholders receiving them are taxed at a low rate, are tax exempt or are non-residents, suggesting that companies are already limited in the manner in which they can provide franking credits.And yet the government claims that these changes are required to limit the circumstances in which companies which are effectively wholly owned by non-residents or tax-exempts can utilise franking credits. The argument simply does not hold water. If the government wants to be taken seriously on this issue then it needs to start providing some serious facts and figures to back up its claims of abuse.As recently as the day before yesterday, in an answer during question time, the Treasurer talked at length about the protective measures employed to combat rorts and tax minimisation schemes. Sadly, this entirely honourable pursuit outlined by the Treasurer is undermined by the continued failure of his government to satisfactorily substantiate claims of abuse.I conclude by observing that I find the approach of the Labor Party in opposition to legislation such as this curious. In his opening address on this bill on behalf of the Labor Party, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) said that the reservations he holds for the legislation will be dealt with in the Senate. In other words, we are using the House of Representatives as a clearing house. The opposition is not able, equipped or willing to debate the legislation in this place, to make its concerns known in detail or to propose any amendments it may have. Instead it is leaving it to its colleagues in the Senate. I find that a rather curious approach—if it is not demeaning of the House it certainly shows a lack of either confidence or ability to deliberate on legislation, complicated as it might be and indeed as it nearly always is in taxation matters.09:57:004549Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 is a catch-all bill and it makes various amendments in relation to taxation provisions. The particular provision about which I want to speak is schedule 5, which provides for donations of $2 or more to the Menzies Research Centre to be deductible if made after 2 April 1998. It in fact puts into effect the announcement of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) on 10 October 1996 that donations of $2 or more would be deductible. Indeed, it was in the Treasurer's defence of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in another censure motion against the Prime Minister for misleading this House that I was reminded of the background to this particular provision. The Treasurer was very kind to remind us that last Monday was not the first time the Prime Minister had deceived the public and withheld from the public domain that which should have been before it. The Treasurer also helpfully stated, in relation to the Prime Minister's three-year memory lapse:Isn't it convenient to have a memory that only goes back three years?Obviously he has not been in the country for the past week to hear the Prime Minister foundering on his definition of `never, ever'—a definition which the Prime Minister now says lasts only for three years. Again the Treasurer helpfully reminded us that it is convenient to have a memory that goes back only three years.We are not opposed to the deductibility amendment but I want to take the opportunity to highlight the sorry history behind this amendment. Again, it is a history of the Prime Minister in deceit, cover-ups, another conflict of interest—this time by the Prime Minister—and a betrayal of trust. It involves a Prime Minister who was a director of a company and did not disclose it; a Prime Minister who, as a director of that company, presided over a cabinet decision which benefited that company and did not declare his interest at the cabinet meeting; and a Prime Minister who, when he was caught out—when he realised that he should have declared—did not fess up but resigned secretly from the position that he held.We need to be reminded of the background of the Prime Minister's unctuous heralding of a new era in politics were he to be elected as Prime Minister. In his campaign launch speech prior to the 1996 election he said, according to a story in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 February, that the thing he most wanted was:`a covenant or understanding' with the people; a covenant of trust, in which, in return for the voters' decision to make him Prime Minister, he would deliver honest and faithful government.`The most important thing any government can do is to build a sense of trust, a sense of integrity, a sense of honesty and a sense of commitment to the Australian people.'Two years after that statement the Prime Minister has failed utterly to build any sense of trust, any sense of integrity, any honesty or any commitment. This is a Prime Minister who said, also prior to the last election, that the coalition would `never ever introduce a GST'. Now the tax that he said he would never ever introduce he wants us to believe will never ever go up. Also, he will not tell the Australian public—whom he wants this covenant of trust with—the details of this new tax, even though he has been promising for 12 months that the details would be available `soon'.This is a Prime Minister who misled the parliament when asked if it were true that the government members tax consultative task force on taxation was told not to make recommendations to the government. The Prime Minister, in a rather out of character show of decisiveness, answered: `No, no, no' to that question—an emphatic `No' to the proposition that this committee had been asked by the government not to make recommendations to it. That defies belief. He must have known because the chairman of the committee knew. The Treasurer told him. He gave instructions, and not only to the chairman of the committee, Mr Brian Gibson, one of the Prime Minister's fallen seven so far, not to make recommendations; all members, it would seem, who participated in that committee were fully aware of it.We have not seen the report but I bet, if it were available, that we would not see the `R' word anywhere—`It is recommended that' or `Recommendations to the government'. Why? Because they were muzzled beforehand. And who muzzled them? The government muzzled them, with the Prime Minister's knowledge. Yet he came into this House and said he knew nothing of that muzzling. That defies belief. We have seen him spend the last week scurrying about in an effort to avoid the fallout from misleading the House over it.He says he did not know, and he expects us to believe him. The problem with this Prime Minister is that he is a serial offender in deceiving and in hiding the truth. The only covenant or understanding this Prime Minister has succeeded in establishing with the Australian people is the following: whenever he opens his mouth, whenever he makes a promise, people understand that he simply cannot be believed. A shining example of this is the Prime Minister's much vaunted code of conduct. The Prime Minister has now ripped up that code of conduct, most graphically over the Warwick Parer affair. The minister for coal who owns a coal mine did not tell the parliament that he had shares in a coal mine. The Prime Minister says `Oh, he only has 16 shares.' The problem is that those 16 shares were worth $2 million and produced a dividend stream over the course of four years of $800,000. Nice if you can get into it! Is this the tax reform the Prime Minister has in mind for the Australian battler? No, only for his flatmate, Warwick Parer.He has torn up the code of conduct in relation to Warwick Parer because, he said, we have actually got to show him with his fingers in the till. But that is not a breach of a code of conduct; that is corruption. So the Prime Minister is saying: `I no longer have a code of conduct. You have to prove corruption.' If we prove corruption, it would not be in here that the Prime Minister would be grilled. It would be in the courts of law that the likes of the people accused of corruption would be tried. It is a ridiculous proposition. The Prime Minister has torn up his code of conduct.But it is not only in relation to his ministers that he has torn up the code of conduct. His own actions in relation to the Menzies Research Centre, the subject of this bill, also involved the Prime Minister breaching his own code of conduct. It is the one example where he has not just breached his ministerial code of conduct but has also breached the requirements of disclosure to this House. In other words, he has misled this House and again he has let down that covenant, that trust, that he says he wants with the Australian people.Let us just remind ourselves of what that code of conduct says.HE4ANDREWMr Andrew—Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It is not a habit of mine to frequently take points of order, as you are aware, but I do think that by any measure the member for Hotham is straying from the purpose of the bill. If he believes that the Prime Minister has misled the House, there are other forms of the House that he should use for such an allegation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—There are two points to the point of order the honourable member has raised that I will deal with. I am sure that the honourable member for Hotham realises that he must couch his terms very carefully when making allegations regarding the behaviour of the Prime Minister. To the second point about relevance, I was about to investigate how wide ranging the debate had been. Apparently it has been wide ranging. The honourable member for Hotham is now coming around directly to one aspect of the bill and I am sure that he will keep in mind that he needs to be relevant to the legislation before us.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker, because what I have said is that this relates to the Menzies centre, a foundation which benefited from a decision of the government and of the cabinet over which the Prime Minister presided but which he did not tell the Australian public about. That is a breach of his code of conduct. It is a breach of the requirements in this House and it is related precisely to why we have a piece of legislation in this House. Do you understand the connection? Well, I will continue with it. What does the Prime Minister's code of conduct state? It states that ministers are required—HE4ANDREWMr Andrew—On the previous point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I presume you understand the connection because the ques tion was directed to me and I would have thought that of itself was unparliamentary conduct.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I would remind the member for Hotham to direct his remarks through the chair.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I would be delighted to direct them through you and I thank the Chief Government Whip for drawing my attention to that dreadful indiscretion—never done on that side of the parliament! The Prime Minister's own code of conduct states:Ministers are required to resign directorships in public companies.John Winston Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, was appointed a director of the Menzies Research Centre Ltd on 29 September 1995. The centre is a company limited by guarantee. He therefore should have resigned his directorship of that public company. He remained a director of the centre after becoming Prime Minister and only resigned secretly on 15 October 1996, interestingly enough just days after the resignations of Senator Short and Senator Gibson for breaching the Prime Minister's code of conduct for not disclosing and after the Prime Minister had said directly to them, `You need to know what your obligations are under my code.' We believe, having admonished his frontbench, he realised himself he was in trouble and so he weaseled his way out. He resigned secretly.What was the means by which he tried to justify this? He relied, in this parliament, on a dictionary definition of what a public company was.BI4MILESMr Miles—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have asked the member for Hotham to come back to the topic. This is not part of the legislation and I would ask you—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is part of the legislation.BI4MILESMr Miles—No, the Menzies centre deductibility is. That is okay.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Well, how did it get it?BI4MILESMr Miles—We will come to the Evatt Foundation and all the rest of it later. I am just putting it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the material that is now being put is just going on and on. It is repetition and I do not think it is relevant to this Taxation Laws Amendment Bill at all. I ask you to bring him back to the topic.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sure the honourable member for Hotham realises the need for relevance. He has, at this point in time, outlined that he is speaking to schedule 5. He is speaking to matters related to the issues that are contained in schedule 5. I might add that the parliamentary secretary has already indicated in his point of order one of the ways in which this debate has probably developed and will be rebutted. If there were other issues that were brought in, the fact that this debate has developed into such a wide ranging one would allow that course of action.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The Prime Minister tried to rely on the fact that this was not a public company. He tried to use a dictionary definition that a public company was one which offered shares to the public. But this is the Prime Minister, a lawyer by training and a man primarily responsible for all Commonwealth law. The law over which he presides makes it clear that a company limited by guarantee is a public company. The point I am making is that he tried to weasel his way out through a dictionary definition because he knew he was caught by his own code of conduct. The mere fact that the company does not trade in shares is immaterial.The Prime Minister's other desperate argument in relation to the centre was that it was a not for profit company and that he was really not involved in the running of the company. That is also spurious because, in the case of the Commonwealth of Australia v. Friedrich, the court found there was nothing in company law to suggest that the standard expected of a part-time non-executive director of a company not for profit was different from the standard expected of any director of a profit making company.Despite the semantic gymnastics of the Prime Minister, the case against him is clear. He did not resign the directorship of the Menzies Research Centre when he became Prime Minister, and he should have. How can the Australian public have any faith in a man who flagrantly breaches his own guidelines on integrity and honesty? I was very interested in the dictionary defence in relation to this matter. He did not use the dictionary in relation to `never ever'.BI4MILESMr Miles—Mr Deputy Speaker, I again raise the point of order in respect of relevance. This is very repetitious. I am not sure how many times I have heard this; it is probably 30 or 40 times now. I do not believe it is relevant to this legislation and I would ask that you draw him back to the debate which is in hand.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham is relating his comments to schedule 5. Perhaps he is overly dwelling on the matters that led up to the decision to create this schedule 5 element but I am sure that, in his concluding few minutes, he will make sure that he is relevant to the bill.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The relevance is this: we are debating in this parliament a bill to give deductibility. We are not against the deductibility, but the process that led to it: a Prime Minister—a director of a company—making a decision in a cabinet to benefit that company. So we have a piece of legislation before the parliament that, in the process of coming here, involved a breach of the Prime Minister's own code of conduct. The point I am making is that it is a conflict of interest. The Prime Minister tried to argue in defence that it was not a conflict of interest because this was not a company. But in saying it wasn't a company, he relied on a shonky dictionary definition. When we asked him in the parliament what the dictionary definition of `never ever' was, he said `not for three years'. If you look at the same dictionary that he relied upon, you will see that the definition of `never ever' says:At no time. On no occasion. Not ever. As an emphatic negative. Not at all.He also redefined the definition of `regular' when he said the cabinet would have regular regional cabinet meetings. They have had them three times in two years. He redefined the word `soon' when he said, `I'm going to Newcastle soon.' Remember when they closed the Newcastle steelworks? `Soon' means `not before I've been to the second test at Lords'. He also redefined the word `immediate' when he said that they would introduce the car tariff legislation immediately. Twelve months on, we still do not have a bill. He redefined the dictionary definition of `continued funding' when he said that he would continue regional development funding, but then cut the funds and abolished the department. He also redefined the word `preference'—`to like better', `to promote or advance a thing preferred', `giving or receiving a favour'—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Hotham should go back to the processes rather than the definitions.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will do that; I just have to finish this point on `preference'. What is his new definition of `preference'? `We don't like One Nation, but we will put them ahead of Labor.' This is a Prime Minister who has lost trust. This is a Prime Minister who has breached his covenant. If, in fact, he is going to give tax deductibility to the Menzies Research Centre out of this program, maybe one of the first tasks he should give it is to rewrite the Concise Oxford Dictionary because he has redefined it in this place. If the Menzies Research Centre is to continue to receive the benefits from this—which we do not oppose—we want to know why the Prime Minister did not fess up; why the Prime Minister has broken his covenant with the Australian public; why the Prime Minister has continued to be deceitful; why the Prime Minister has twisted the truth; and why the Prime Minister has changed definitions. That is what we want to know, and we want to know the true circumstances that led to this bill coming before the House. (Time expired)10:17:004553Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—The Australian public are getting used to the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) griping, whingeing and whining. It happens in question time where they see the aggressive antics of the member for Hotham, and we have heard it again—just taking up the time of parliament and wasting time. As I said, I have probably heard what he said 30 or 40 times. This is not a constructive way of continuing debate about important legislation like the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 .I want to rebut a couple of things he said, since the debate has been allowed to continue in that way. The honourable member for Hotham is well known throughout Australia for his R&D syndicates—where billions of dollars were being used. He was looking after his rich mates. He is accusing the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in regard to the Menzies Centre. The implication is that somehow the Prime Minister was going to get some financial benefit. There are no tradeable shares in that company. Yet the member for Hotham protected his rich mates in regard to R&D syndicates in this country, which was costing other taxpayers billions of dollars. It is the height of hypocrisy for the member for Hotham to come in here and waste time, split hairs and be so pharisaical in his approach over the issue of the Menzies Centre.It is very interesting that we are giving tax deductibility to the Menzies Centre in exactly the same way as there is tax deductibility for the Evatt Foundation. In other words, the Labor side of politics—the Evatt Foundation—is getting the same tax deductibility. What do we know about the history of this? Who gave that tax deductibility? It was given by the now Prime Minister back in 1981 when he was Treasurer. He granted tax deductibility status by way of legislation in exactly the same way as tax deductibility is being provided for the Menzies Centre. We have heard 20 minutes of nonsense from the member for Hotham, but that is not new. I guess we are going to hear a lot more nonsense from the member for Hotham who likes wasting the time of the parliament on some of these matters.There is no doubt that this country, in electing John Howard to the position of Prime Minister, elected a person who is very straightforward and honest. He is a man of integrity and he can be trusted. His commitment to the Australian people is very clear. There is no doubt that the Australian people know of the decency and honesty of John Howard. They have seen that over the 20-odd years or more that he has been in this parliament, and they will continue to see it. I rebut entirely everything the member for Hotham has said in that regard. As somebody who works very closely with him, I see him as one of the most decent, honest people in this country. Certainly compared with some of the people represented on the other side of politics, he stands out.This bill covers a large number of measures. Firstly, it delivers further on the government's commitment to reduce compliance costs for small business by implementing the fringe benefits tax record keeping exemption in response to a recommendation by the Bell task force. Other FBT reforms designed to reduce compliance costs for small business are contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1997, which is awaiting debate in the Senate.These measures include an FBT exemption for employee taxi travel to cover travel to and from work at any time of the day, an FBT exemption from 1 July 1997 for car parking on small business premises, and simplification of the range of provisions. The small business recording keeping exemptions may benefit up to half of the small businesses in Australia paying FBT and will come at a cost of $70 million over four years. The record keeping exemption targets those employers whose fringe benefits tax does not exceed an indexed threshold amount and who do not significantly alter the fringe benefits provided in later years. Eligible employers will not be required to keep fringe benefit records and will have their FBT liability in future years determined from base year taxable benefits. The benefit threshold for the 1996-97 FBT year is $5,000. The measure applies to benefits provided from the date of royal assent and to FBT liabilities from the 1998-99 year.Secondly, the bill implements a number of important 1997-98 budget measures. The first is part of a package of measures relating to preventing franking credit trading and dividend streaming. This bill introduces a rule to limit the source of franking credits available for franking credit trading. The Senate recently passed Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 which contains the general anti-avoidance rules. The second budget measure relates to depreciation of plant previously owned by exempt entities. The bill sets a common base for the depreciation deductions for plant that can be claimed by exempt entities which become taxable and by taxable entities which purchase plant from an exempt entity in connection with the acquisition of a business. The measure is designed to align the treatment of asset sales with the treatment of sales of shares in the entity.The third measure amends the tax law to prevent taxpayers obtaining deductions for capital expenditure in excess of their actual outlays. Where the expenditure has been financed by hire purchase or limited recourse finance, an associated amendment will treat taxpayers who finance assets by hire purchase as the owners of those assets for purposes of applying the various capital allowance deductions.In addition, the bill amends the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1992 to rectify defects in the current law, thereby ensuring that sales tax exemption for goods incorporated into properties owned by or leased to always exempt persons or the government of a foreign country is only available for the purchase of goods principally for their own use or for use by organisations conducting the business of always exempt persons or the government of a foreign country. This measure applies to any dealing from the date of the introduction of the bill into the parliament.The bill also demonstrates the government's commitment to dealing promptly with technical areas which occur in the rewrite of the Income Assessment Tax 1936 by the tax law improvement project. The bill also amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to include the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission within the definition of a law enforcement agency for the purpose of obtaining access to taxation information.I want to make a few brief points about some comments made during the debate. The member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) made comments regarding the amendments to the sales tax law and the erosion of the PAYE base. In relation to his comments on the sales tax, the amendments apply to dealings on or after 2 April 1998—the date the bill was introduced into the House. The measure is not retrospective. Where a contract has been entered into on the basis of that, sales tax exemption will apply. Section 128 of the Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 allows the contract price to be altered as a result of a change to the sales tax law which directly causes an increase in the cost of the party complying with the contract. As the member for Wills should know, increases in sales are generally applied from the date of announcement.The other point I would make is that, following the introduction of the bill into the parliament, advertisements were placed in the national papers advising of the proposed change. The advertisements made clear that the sales tax does not need to be remitted to the tax office until 28 days after the bill receives royal assent. The member for Wills also made comments about leakage from the PAYE tax system. Despite its apparent concern about this issue, Labor had not passed its legislation to amend the PAYE laws before it was thrown from office on 2 March 1996, and Labor never issued the promised discussion paper, although the budget documents of May 1995 said the paper would be issued `shortly'. If we are going to have the member for Hotham in here debating definitions, the word `shortly', in regard to the previous Labor government, ought to be clearly addressed. I suspect that this splitting of hairs does not get the country any further ahead and I suggest to the opposition that the best way to proceed in the future might be to ignore these silly nit-picking debates.Let me reassure you that the government believes that all taxpayers should pay their fair share of tax. However, small businesses were highly critical of Labor's proposed changes to the PAYE provisions. We received representations that the proposed changes would in some circumstances have brought payments to independent contractors within the PAYE provisions. In response to those representations, the government decided not to proceed with the legislative changes introduced into the parliament by Labor.However, the Commissioner of Taxation is continuing to take steps to safeguard the operation of the law and, in relation to alienation of personal services income, we have asked the commissioner to ensure he continues to apply existing provisions including the anti-avoidance provisions of part IVA to ensure that taxpayers do not avoid paying tax on personal services income through the use of interposed entities. To this end the tax office is currently conducting compliance projects that are dealing with personal service income—the PAYE enhancement project and the alienation of personal services income project.The member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) made a number of comments about schedule 13, that is, limiting the source of franking credits available for trading. In particular, he suggested that there is an anomaly in the provisions because whereas minority non-resident shareholders in companies effectively wholly owned by the non-residents can benefit from the franking credits of the company, minority resident shareholders cannot, and the government has not provided revenue figures for the measure.In regard to the alleged anomaly, it is not anomalous to allow minority non-resident shareholders to gain the benefit from franking credits in the form of an exemption from dividend withholding tax while denying franking rebates to resident minority shareholders. This is a necessary consequence of the provisions if they are to be effective in preventing such companies selling off their franking credits to franking credit buyers. That is the very mischief the measure is designed to prevent.In regard to revenue, while it is not possible to provide an exact estimate of the revenue lost that already existed from franking credit trading and dividend streaming, $130 million a year is now being factored into the forward estimates for 1998-99 and subsequent years to take account of the effect of the measures on existing activities. This revenue effect will be reflected in the explanatory memorandum for Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) introducing the 45-day rule. I commend the legislation to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4556Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Miles) read a third time.Bills4556r513Billsr514Bills4556Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.10:31:004556Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The legislation which is currently before the House—the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998—is currently being considered by a Senate committee. The Senate committee is not expected to report until, I think, 22 June. It becomes rather difficult for the House of Representatives to consider these matters when the public inquiry which is being conducted by the Senate and the report which is expected from that Senate committee are not in the public domain. But that is perhaps typical of the process by which the government has pursued this particular legislation. I will say a bit more about that later.I begin by saying that, just as the last parliament and this parliament spent a lot of time working out the right series of measures that needed to be put into the Telecommunications Act to open up the telecommunications market to full and open competition, there is a similar number of very complex issues which need to be dealt with in considering the transition from analog to digital broadcasting in Australia. In telecommunications there were a whole series of issues that placed many of the different stakeholders at each other's throats; a whole series of issues that needed to be weighed up. Many decisions had to be made, each one of which determined the final impact of telecommunications on the Australian public for many years to come. In the same way in broadcasting, this legislation deals with many complex issues; issues on which a considered judgment needs to be made about what is in the public interest.In some ways, I am reminded of a book that I read over the Christmas break called Longitude. It portrays the history of the development of accurate chronometers that allowed sailors to determine their longitude so that they did not hit hidden reefs and allowed them to accurately plot their position on the globe. Actually, a competition was established by an act of the British parliament to encourage timepiece makers to develop accurate chronometers. The chronometers ended up being massive machines which had many different working parts and many different springs and metal objects to try to ensure that, whatever the changes in temperature, however rough the sea, they maintained their time. In some ways it is the same in broadcasting. With this legislation we have the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) weighing up the many compromises and decisions that need to be made to try to ensure that, when we look at the future of broadcasting in Australia, we protect the public interest.Despite the views of many of my constituents, I think we currently do have reasonably good quality television in Australia. I am reminded of that old comment by Winston Churchill that democracy is the worst way to run a government, except for all the alternatives. In some ways in Australia our television, despite its faults, is perhaps one of the worst, except for all the alternative forms of television which are available in every other country. In Australia we do have a very healthy mix of national broadcasters and commercial broadcasters. When we make a comparison with Britain and Europe, we see that they do tend to have a much stronger public system and often a much weaker commercial broadcasting sector. Whereas, in the United States there is—as is the case in so many other areas, such as health—a minuscule public broadcasting system and a very strong, dominant commercial broadcasting sector.I think that our healthy combination of public broadcasting and commercial broadcasting, with a dash of community broadcasting on top, means that we do tend to get some of the best of the programming that is available in other countries. But we have also seen over the last 20 to 25 years—since the Whitlam government years—a healthy increase in the level of quality Australian content on television. We have local content quotas which ensure that we have quality Australian material, particularly drama, on our TV screens at prime time. I am pleased to say that not only does it get high ratings in Australia but also it is earning export dollars for Australia in export sales to other countries.We are recognised around the world for producing some of the best quality children's television programs. It is often not shown at prime time, but we do have many children who know when quality children's programming is put to air. I am sure that the recognition Australia receives around the world is testament to another policy success in getting that balance between ensuring that commercial broadcasting is profitable in Australia but that commercial broadcasters have certain obligations to the public. They get to use the spectrum, they get to operate as free to air broadcasters, they get a piece of paper with a television broadcasting licence which allows them to make a lot of money out of free to air broadcasting.In return, the Australian public, through the Australian Broadcasting Authority, puts obligations on them to make sure that they meet minimum Australian content rules, that they have a certain amount of new Australian drama, new children's television and new documentaries going to air each year. That is part of the balance. There is a very complex machine that is Australian television, that compromise between how many public broadcasters, how many community broadcasters, how many commercial broadcasters to have in each capital city market. You look at the profitability of the commercial broadcasters. What are the public obligations you place on them. What is the competition for advertising revenue between commercial television, radio, newspapers and magazines. All of these things comprise a very complex machine. We have to make sure that we get the balance right, otherwise we could end up with a television broadcasting system that does not deliver the level of quality we have today. If we make the wrong decisions on digital television, we could end up with a broadcasting regime that does not allow us to maintain the current standards of broadcasting in Australia.With those preliminary comments, I turn to the legislation. I would like to briefly remind the House of why I think we have this piece of legislation before us today. This is a piece of legislation which the government is already on record as saying that it is determined to see rammed through the parliament before the end of the next two sitting weeks. We all suspect that there might be an election called before the parliament resumes in August. I think it will be very unfortunate if the parliament does not get sufficient time to consider the implications of this bill because of the government's election timetable.Why is the government trying to ram this legislation through in the next two weeks? Let me remind the House that when the current broadcasting bill was before the parliament, I think way back in 1991 and 1992, the Minister for Family Services, the member for Bass (Mr Warwick Smith), introduced a second reading amendment to this particular legislation. In those days he was the coalition spokesman on communications. He was responsible for an amendment moved to the broadcasting bill in the Senate which required the then Labor government to conduct an inquiry into whether or not it was in the public interest to have a fourth commercial television network in Australia. When I had the honour of being Minister for Communications and the Arts, we tossed around whether to have another commercial network, an open university channel, a channel which provided for community broadcasters in each of the capital cities and regional areas or a family channel. There were a number of people in the Labor Party who were pushing very strongly for a channel perhaps similar to some of the specialised channels on some of the pay TV networks where parents could be assured that there would be less violence and, if there were news services, that they would not have as much graphic footage about disturbing images.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—About parliament.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—About parliament perhaps on certain days. Certainly there was a view that in those days on the coalition side we needed to look at the possibility of extra competition in commercial television broadcasting.Having moved this amendment way back in 1991, it was in the legislation that this inquiry be conducted before 30 June 1996 or 1997. During the period that this government has been in office it has stopped an inquiry. The Australian Broadcasting Authority had a reference from the former Labor government to conduct an inquiry into whether or not there should be a fourth commercial television network. The Liberal Party stopped that inquiry. They have taken no action whatsoever to look at whether or not it is in the public interest to have an open university channel, a family channel or a commercial broadcasting channel network. Accordingly, we have not had that full debate which certainly the member for Bass thought we needed a few years ago.That is a minor offence compared to the undertakings which the government gave before the last election to conduct a full public inquiry into the cross-media ownership rules. Some people might ask, `What has that got to do with digital television?' We on this side of the House believe it has everything to do with why this legislation is being rammed through the parliament before the next election by the Howard government. Before the last election, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) promised a full public inquiry into the cross-media ownership rules. As soon as he was elected, the government announced that it had scrapped the need for a full public inquiry and that instead it would simply hold a private, in camera departmental review.Not surprisingly, when that review was completed the government was given the recommendation it asked for: a recommendation to water down or abolish the cross-media ownership rules. There was a public outcry at the Prime Minister's intentions to abolish the cross-media ownership rules, which would have allowed Mr Murdoch to purchase Channel 7 in addition to owning his Australian newspapers, which would have allowed Mr Packer to purchase the Fairfax newspaper group in addition to owning Channel 9, which would have allowed Channel 10 to purchase radio stations in addition to owning its television networks. It would have meant that we would have had an even greater concentration of ownership in the Australian media than we have today.I am pleased to acknowledge that a number of government backbenchers spoke out with many of us on this side of the House about the dangers posed by that greater concentration of media ownership under the Prime Minister's plans. The next speaker—and I hope I do not put a hex on him—was one of those who was reported within the Liberal Party to have spoken out strongly against the Prime Minister's changes. We acknowledge the courage of the government members who were prepared to speak out on what I consider still to be one of the most important decisions that the Howard government has made to date. Thank God the Prime Minister was rolled on that one.Having denied the media proprietors the watering down of the cross-media ownership rules, we then have digital television placed on the agenda. Instead of having the long debate that all of us believe is necessary, unfortunately we have the government commissioning reports from the Australian Broadcasting Authority—reports that we on the opposition side believe did not consider all of the issues as thoroughly as was required. It is pretty rare for the Broadcasting Authority to do this—in the past it has had a pretty good record in its work on producing reports on broadcasting—but we believe on digital television the ABA has tended to be very strongly influenced by the free to air broadcasters. I am disappointed that the government has not been prepared to ensure that there is a wider debate about many of the consequences of these issues.The Minister for Family Services, the member for Bass, who introduced the legislation, said:. . . we need to ensure broadcasters have clear signposts along the road to digital television, and are able to embark along the risky conversion process with a degree of certainty about government policy.That sounds like a motherhood statement. The concern we have is that the legislation does not contain clear signposts along the road and does not give the degree of certainty that stakeholders are entitled to have. This legislation leaves the minister with enormous powers to give directions to the Australian Broadcasting Authority to determine how digital television will be introduced. There certainly are not clear signposts; there is actually a sign which says, `Watch this space for what the minister will do after the election.' It certainly does not allow us to reach any firm conclusions about whether the minister has set all of the levers and knobs on this complex machine to the right settings. We think that, in those circumstances, the minister cannot claim that this legislation is providing the certainty that is needed.The legislation seeks to allow digital television broadcasting to commence on 1 January 2001; it also claims that all areas will have digital coverage by 1 January 2004 and that, if any regional television broadcaster drags its feet, it will be required to surrender its digital licences.One question I would like to put to the minister who sums up at the end of this debate is: is the government prepared to give a guarantee that anyone who currently receives analog television channels will receive all of the digital channels that will be broadcast? We all know that the transition from analog mobile telephony to digital mobile telephony has seen many areas where there have been holes in the coverage of digital mobile telephones, and, where the Broadcasting Authority has moved analog broadcasters from the VHF to the UHF band, there have been occasions when the broadcasting authorities have not been able to ensure that every person who used to receive a signal receives a signal from the new translator or the new antenna. So we seek some guarantee from the government that, if we are going to see a switch from analog to digital, after the year 2008, after the period of simulcast when the current analog stations shut down, anyone who currently receives the analog channel will have access to a digital channel.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Better quality.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member interjects and says, `Better quality.' I seem to remember that we were promised better quality when we moved to digital mobile phones, but I am not sure we actually have delivered better quality on digital mobile phones.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—That is your fault.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—He says that is our fault. I think we have to sometimes question whether the so-called experts in these areas do know as much about what will happen as they claim, and on digital broadcasting I think we are entitled to ask whether anyone who currently receives analog television channels will be able to receive digital television channels. If there are areas where people live in valleys or in places with difficult terrain, if there are places where they will not receive digital television, who is going to meet the cost of putting in translators to make sure that they then get access?Normally in commercial television broadcasting it is up to the commercial television channels to decide whether they will spend extra money to put in additional translators to improve their signal. If this government is going to leave it up to the Seven, Nine and Ten networks to decide how many of their viewers will get access to digital television, then I suggest that there is a danger that many of their current viewers who now get analog channels 7, 9 and 10 may not get digital 7, 9 and 10 and all of the other digital services that are coming.For the people in the gallery and the people listening, the other message the government has not told you very clearly is that you will have to purchase a new digital television which may cost quite a considerable sum of money. It is difficult at the moment to accu rately estimate how much the new digital televisions will cost, but you can imagine the cost to the community when every television which now operates in Australia will not be able to pick up signals when the current analog signals cease in 2008 or later. It is quite a dramatic cost to ordinary families, and we certainly need some guarantee that the signal will work in all the current areas where people are receiving signals.As for the phase-in period, the Labor Party has indicated in-principle support for the simulcasting time line, that is, for commencing the digital broadcasting in 2001, and for the period of simulcasting to proceed at least until the year 2008. We support that particular time line.We have indicated our in principle support for the free loan to the free to air broadcasters of a second block of seven megahertz of spectrum to allow them to simultaneously broadcast the new digital service and their old analog service.We have also indicated our in principle support for a ban on multi-channelling. This was one of the requests or demands that the free to air broadcasters put on the table during the debate. Basically it would mean that channels 7, 9 and 10 could have converted their single analog channel into five or seven different digital channels—not high-definition television, but into a number of different channels.Basically today in Australia, instead of having our three commercial broadcasters, if we had enough spectrum for 15 commercial broadcasters, I think very few people would think it would be fair to allocate all of those new channels to the existing broadcasters, to allow the current three networks to maintain their monopoly of the Australian television broadcasting market. Quite rightly, the government is saying that the commercial broadcasters will not be allowed to introduce multi-channelling.We are a bit quizzical about the government's decision to allow the ABC and SBS to engage in multi-channelling broadcasting. The reason I am a bit quizzical about that is that I think it will be very difficult for the government to allow public broadcasters to introduce multi-channelling but to prohibit commercial broadcasters from bringing in multi-channelling. I suspect that this might be the government deliberately allowing the free to air broadcasters to put a foot in the door for multi-channelling or, in fact, for the commercial broadcasters to see the ABC and SBS foot in the door so as to perhaps allow the commercial broadcasters to come back at some future date and seek to have multi-channelling options.The debate in Australia started off in the same way as the debate in the United States. Free to air television said that this was all about delivering high definition television to Australian viewers. What they said was, `If you give us this extra quantity of spectrum, this seven megahertz of spectrum' which, by the way, blocks out any other new competitors, `then we will move towards high definition television that will give cinema-quality pictures to Australian viewers around the country.'In the United States, exactly the same argument was used when they went through this debate but, having received the spectrum, the US broadcasters are now saying that they have no speedy plans to introduce large quantities of high definition television broadcasting. They are into multi-channelling as much as they can. They are into making sure that they do not do what they said they would do, which was to introduce high definition TV. It is all about trying to maximise their revenue rather than delivering an improved service to their viewers.I think we have to be very sceptical about whether the government will in fact set up a regime that will deliver high definition television to Australian viewers. I suspect that the demands for multi-channelling will still be not far from the top of the list of objectives of the free to air broadcasters.On the restriction on new licences, we have the government saying that there will be no new commercial television licences allowed before 2008. That is one of the few specific clauses that are hard and fast and not given over to the discretion of the minister. As I say, that contrasts quite dramatically with the views of the member for Bass when he was the opposition spokesman on communications earlier this decade and was arguing for a public inquiry into whether or not we needed a fourth commercial television network. The Labor Party has said that we will be considering amendments to this period of exclusivity which goes all the way to 2008. Our final decision on that will be made clear once we have seen the outcome of that Senate inquiry.There are several other issues which we believe are worthy of consideration. They include the question of industry development. The Labor Party believes that it is important for the legislation to explicitly recognise the industry development obligations and the opportunities that will arise for Australian manufacturers and those who are involved in software development through digitalisation. We think it would be helpful for the government to require industry development plans in the same way as in telecommunications where the major carriers are required to develop plans to maximise the opportunities for Australian manufacturers and software developers. We would also like to see digital broadcasting offering new and innovative opportunities for information service providers in rural and regional areas. Many of these, we believe, are worthy of consideration.For these reasons, we have concerns about the government's attempts to ram this through in the next two weeks. We are concerned that the government has not got the settings right on all of the knobs and levers in this complex machine known as broadcasting in Australia. We believe that, unless the government gives this greater thought and consideration, then there is a risk that we will not have as high a quality Australian television as we have today. Therefore, I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that further consideration of the Bill should be deferred, for the following reasons:(1) the Government has provided insufficient time and opportunity for a wide public consultation process to examine the impact of the introduction of digital broadcasting into Australia;(2) the Government has introduced this Bill with undue haste which is reflected by the fact that it was necessary to circulate substantial amend ments even before the resumption of the second reading debate;(3) the Australian Broadcasting Authority provided advice that indicated that legislation could be tabled in Parliament in October 1998 providing for a digital broadcasting commencement date of 1 January 2000, and the Government has given no reasons for ignoring this advice;(4) given that the Government received the digital broadcasting report of the Australian Broadcasting Authority in July 1997 and then took over eight months to make a public announcement on its proposed framework for digital broadcasting, its claim that the legislation needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency is disingenuous;(5) the Senate is conducting an inquiry into the legislation, and although the inquiry has been given insufficient time to report by the Government, it is likely that evidence and recommendations will emerge from that inquiry which would assist the House in giving proper consideration to the Bill;(6) the Government's legislation does not address the enormous potential that is presented for industry development in Australia through the migration into a digital broadcasting environment—opportunities will exist for Australian manufacturing and software development industries and the contribution this can make to Australian employment and export earnings should be recognised and supported in the legislation;(7) the Government's legislation does not provide sufficient recognition for the particular infrastructure issues faced throughout regional areas, and just as digital broadcasting provides special opportunities for access to new services in rural and regional Australia, disproportionate expenditure will be required to ensure that the capacity exists for the development of appropriate infrastructure;(8) the Parliament's consideration of this Bill must place paramount importance on the interests of the broader Australian community and consumers, and given the impact that digital broadcasting will have on the delivery and reception of television and other broadband and online services, any attempt to hasten the legislative process without proper parliamentary scrutiny, public debate and discussion, could jeopardise those interests".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.11:01:004562Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The Australian Labor Party have proved yet again that for them the information superhighway should be torn up and turned into a dirt track. The Australian Democrats have a view that is slightly different: it should not just be a dirt track; it should also be a toll road. Anyway, we will let them work that out as time goes on.I think the bottom line is that in Australia we have the very best television in the world. We have free to air terrestrial television that the rest of the world could only envy, with three commercial operators offset by a very effective public system of the ABC and SBS providing an effective range of views and access to programs. This has been supplemented in recent years by an emerging cable sector. With a strong public sector, a strong private sector and an emerging cable television sector, Australia is very well served.We have been strong adaptors of technology over the years. Television started in time for the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne and colour TV seemed to be hinged more around the Commonwealth Games of 1974—or was it the Olympics of 1976? We have seen Australians over a long period of time readily take up technology and readily accept the need to be part of what is new and what is also to their benefit as far as entertainment and information access are concerned. We have a successful quality and quantity of Australian content.All of this comes as a result of quite deliberate action by government over the years—deliberate action to require the telecasters of such programs to provide Australian content through a carrot and a stick approach and also deliberate action because one of the few things that we can claim is directly underpinned from the 1901 version of the constitution is management of the spectrum. As a result, we can quite legitimately legislate in this place, and in no other place in Australia, those rules and regulations which govern the access to the spectrum, the basis on which television and telecommunications signals are sent. Commercial channels sell access to the spectrum, which governments make it possible for them to access by licensing arrangements.As a result of those licensing arrangements, we can set and demand certain outcomes. In that regard, the bill before us today is consistent with everything that has ever been passed in broadcast or television policy since whenever. After all, we have a set of regulations and requirements and a set of outcomes that are well specified, and we have a set of deliberate actions that we want those who want to have access to digital television to meet, otherwise they will not have the access.It is important to address a couple of the matters mentioned by the member for Dobell (Mr Lee), a former minister for communications in the Keating government. I think it is important for him to know that no-one on this side will allow digital television to become the technological stalking horse for the cross-media ownership debate. I can assure you that that matter has been well addressed by the government's communications and the arts backbench policy committee.MG4LEEMr Lee—What about the next term?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—We are certain that, whether it is in this term or the next term, doors are not going to be left open to allow those sorts of things to occur. In fact, quite the opposite: the doors are left open to a range of possibilities as far as the use of this technology is concerned, but there are mechanisms contained within this bill which will ensure open inquiry and accountability for the decisions which are made. We have to make sure we do get specified in this bill the outcomes we want. We have to make sure also the industry itself is given some very clear guidelines as to the timetable it needs to embark upon. I am concerned the Australian Labor Party and their cohorts in crime, in a metaphoric sense, in the Senate are very much hell-bent on the delay of this bill. They want to drag it out and drag it out for no apparent reason other than simply blatant opposition for opposition's sake.What is at stake? It is an industry in which I once worked and in which, I know, the member for Calare (Mr Andren), who will be speaking as well this morning, also worked. An industry such as this, like any industry, needs to understand where they are going, how they can invest and what they have to invest in, and what are the rules and regulations governing such investment. Queued up all around this country at the moment, from the smallest country town to the biggest city like Sydney, are television operators waiting for this bill to be passed to bring some certainty to their actions. They want to get on with the job of purchasing the equipment and getting in place the technical side of things so the new digital age can be realised. And we have the Australian Labor Party professing delay, which I think is anchored in the basis of opposition for opposition's sake.In my own electorate people in the suburbs of Wishart, Upper Mount Gravatt, Mount Gravatt, Holland Park West, Wellers Hill and Tarragindi and people up Weller Road find that they get a poor quality analog signal now. They are getting ghosting and scratching because of the physical intrusion of Mount Gravatt. To address one of the matters raised by the member for Dobell, in the digital regime the clear signal which is available close to the transmitter will be available in those sorts of scratchy areas.It is a technical fact that digital transmission is more robust than analog. The signal is resistant to electrical interference and to ghosting. Ghosting is something which happens when the signal cannot distinguish between some physical interruption and the place where it is supposed to go, so hills, buildings and so forth cause problems. Being digital, the signal cannot readily contain additional data which allows the receiver to correct errors caused by this interference. In most instances, as a result of digital transmissions, a perfect copy of the signal is transmitted. This information was given to me, I confess, by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, but if they are prepared to put this in writing, then I am prepared to relate it in the parliament. I think this in itself is a mechanism of accountability for such an organisation and for the members it represents to actually deliver on it.For those constituents of the member for Dobell, of the member for Calare—and, I think, yours as well, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl—who are on the edges of the transmission area and get a scratchy signal, digital will produce a clear signal right to the edge of the scratchiness we currently get with analog. To delay this bill longer means constituents of mine, of yours and of other members in this place will continue to experience the poor quality transmissions they are currently suffering.If the Australian Labor Party want to continue to delay the bill, this sort of problem is going to continue for a long time. They are actually threatening the gentle balance which exists in this industry, a balance which has the potential for high profits but which also returns profits into the employment of people through the creation of Australian content television productions and so forth. Delays will interrupt such an investment regime and the process of logical planning for what is to come, I think the Australian Labor Party should get out of the way so we can get on with the job we are supposed to do. Far from ramming this through, the government is recognising the need for Australia to be part of what is happening in the world. In November of this year the United States is switching on to digital television, and the Australian Labor Party are professing delays to keep Australia further behind. There is no need for it.What is the consumer going to get out of this? They are going to get higher quality pictures, CD quality sound and access, for a lot of their programming, to cinema quality broad screen pictures on their television sets. Yes, they will have to purchase new television sets, but Australians have never been afraid of buying into new technology. As more Australians purchase into this new technology, they will find the costs will continue to decline, as they have with mobile phones. For those who purchased a mobile phone very early on—and I certainly was not one of them, because I could not afford it 10 years ago—the cost was around $1,000. They are now down to $49, and I suspect the same thing will happen when it comes to digital television.At the end of the day, it is not just about television programs and the hedonistic experience of enjoying your favourite show—the member for Moore (Mr Filing) perhaps like Neighbours or similar shows; it is also about access to the information superhighway, because digital television contains within it the prospect for the television set to be accessed by computer and data content, a bit like the movie Back to the Future. People will be able to receive phone messages, access the Internet and all these sorts of things, all from the comfort of their loungeroom.Those matters are not going to be an automatic right for the current free to air carriers because the government has quite rightly said that is beyond the basic job they currently do. This bill specifies, as is the case with all these sorts of matters, clear understandings and clear obligations on the free to air channels to gain access, in a loan sense, to spectrum, provided they do the job they are supposed to do.QT4FILINGMr Filing—It's a free gift.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—There is no sense of giving away anything here because, after all, giving access to the spectrum for digital to operate in a simulcast with analog in the transition period of about eight years is an additional cost to those involved in television transmission, because they have two sets of transmitters to maintain. That in itself is a major undertaking for television operators in Australia: that they will meet the requirement of the government to provide certainty to those who have analog receivers only, as well as access to those who are going to get their digital receivers from day one.Over a period of time, as people start to go to their neighbours' and friends' homes and see high definition television—just as people went to their friends' homes and saw colour television for the first time—they will start to purchase these sets. As a basic consequence, people will go over to the digital regime more than analog. When they see the better quality pictures, when they hear the better quality sound and when they start to see and hear things their neighbours have got, there will be a `keeping up with the Joneses' approach.To facilitate this process and to allow the television operators—both the public sector and the private sector—some certainty and some dignity after 40-odd years of being involved in the industry, we need to make sure there is this requirement to simulcast. Those opposite who suggest there is any sort of cosy deal misunderstand completely the way the government is going with this. In fact, the requirements are, from the commercial television stations' viewpoints, quite draconian for them. Their natural aspiration to take up multi-channelling and data casting and to expand their current business using this technology as a stalking horse to concentrate media ownership in this country even more is not going to occur, because this bill specifically states they cannot depart from what they have been doing. Channel Nine have to continue to run the programs they currently run. They run it on both analog and digital. There are some programming enhancements they are allowed to undertake. For example, in the case of a football match, if Alfie Langer scores a try in the State of Origin on Friday night—and I hope he scores about five—then you might be able to access a profile on Alfie Langer. That is an enhancement of the same basic task the channel was doing pre-digital.So those sorts of basic, straightforward rules and regulations are specified in this bill. To those in the Australian Democrats who have said that we perhaps should have sold access to the spectrum to the commercial channels to underwrite the ABC's costs of meeting the technical requirements, I say this: if you actually sell something to someone, from a moral point of view you have less of an opportunity to actually dictate to them the terms of what they do.QT4FILINGMr Filing—Like Telstra; is that what you are saying?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Moore will be silent!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—That is impossible, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am beginning to believe you.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The one last point I want to make is that if you had in fact sold the spectrum to these particular operators you would have had less control over them. By lending it to them with some requirements attached to them, the government's plans, obligations and intentions are well met and well served. For these many reasons I commend the bills to the House.11:16:004565Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I have listened with interest during debate on the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 to the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) and, before him, to the member for Dobell (Mr Lee). I say to the member for Moreton: let us not forget, as we are debating, the analog/digital phone decisions and how we are regretting now that we acted in haste five or six years ago, expecting the digital technology to deliver more in fact than it is actually capable of.When members of this House first debated the introduction of television back in the 1950s, there is no way they could have foreseen just how powerful and influential this new medium would become. It is fair to say that members back then probably had trouble fully coming to terms with what this exciting new technology was really all about, just as many of us are equally unsure of what digital TV will really mean.Never would they have imagined that some 10 years later this medium would bring war into people's living rooms as Australians fought in Vietnam. In the same decade they would watch Neil Armstrong take that first step on the moon.It has taken us to royal weddings and funerals. It has changed the face of politics, making successful practitioners masters or slaves of the 20-second news grab. It has changed the sport we play, taking cricketers out of whites and having them play under lights at night. It has seen us humming jingles and reciting slogans, making it a most powerful medium for advertisers to the point where prime time commercial spots can be sold for many thousands of dollars. It is fair to say television is such a powerful means of communication that it has been one of the greatest impacts on the world in this century.These bills lay the foundation for the future of television in this country, at the same time making it an even more powerful medium because they also give broadcasters the technical potential to operate multi-channel services. For the first time, viewers in the home will be able to interact with the medium. As well as being more powerful, it also has the potential to have a greater capacity for earning revenue. Data capability means we will be able to watch an advertisement and click on an icon to make an immediate purchase. Again, we cannot begin to imagine the full capability of this new medium, but it is fair to say it will in time generate even more revenue for its key players.Since the introduction of television there has been a decline in newspaper circulation and titles in Australia. It is quite possible that this newest development will see a further decline in newsprint as a means of communication and a huge expansion in on-line information services. When this House was charged with the task of deciding what to do with television back in the 1950s, the Menzies government decided it was best to keep onside the most powerful media proprietors of that era. So back then they decided to give the first licences to the existing newspaper barons.While a lot of things have changed since the 1950s, a lot of things have stayed the same. Today's politicians are still preoccupied with trying to serve the best interests of powerful media barons, especially in an election year.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—You used to work for them.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I know all about it then. I have been rung by Mr Packer during a news broadcast, questioning the line-up of my bulletin. I say to you: it still goes on.Critics have been describing these bills as a goldmine for the existing free to air networks. Certainly any objective person who has looked at them would have to agree they certainly have that potential and at the very least will be favourable for the major networks. Just how favourable will depend on what fees the networks are eventually charged for so-called datacasting services and what other services they may be permitted to offer with the section of broadcasting spectrum being given to them. It will also depend on what other competitors are given access to the broadcast spectrum and can compete on favourable terms with the networks.The problem may well be that these bills will allow the three existing commercial networks to become so dominant in the fields of datalink broadcasting over the next decade that any real competition will have difficulty getting off the ground. These bills really set up the framework for the introduction of digital TV to allow stations to begin planning, but much of the fine print has still to be worked out by the Broadcasting Authority and the government. It is a case of `she'll be right, mate'—and I say: remember the mobile phones.These bills have in-built flexibility to, hopefully, with a prayer, allow correct decisions to be taken in the future as the digital networks begin to take shape. This flexibility is obviously necessary if we are rushing this thing in now because the Australian government's most recent significant decisions in relation to communications planning have been disasters. The introduction of pay TV is perhaps the most relevant example.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—That was Michael Lee.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I am talking about `government'—previous and this. The introduction was delayed to once again appease the free to air networks. While the delay should have given government time to make the right decisions, it instead made such a mess of that industry it has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. The other completely botched communications decision relates to the introduction of GSM digital mobile phones and the ridiculous policy to phase out analog by the end of next year. Lessons should be learnt from this disastrous compulsory analog phase-out—whoever brought it in and whoever is continuing it—so it should not be repeated. With those two planning disasters behind us, I hope our communications planners will not make it three in a row and that these bills will set us on the right path for the introduction of digital television.Of course, these bills already have many critics who see them as a huge leg-up for the existing free to air networks. These critics include News Corporation, Optus and Telstra, who see the existing networks are being given a big share of the broadcast spectrum for nothing and will possibly be able to compete with their pay TV multi-channel ventures in which they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to set up.The massive giveaway argument has been denied by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations representing the networks, which argue that the industry needs help to compensate for the huge costs involved in building digital television networks. I have read the arguments on both sides and, as is often the case with arguments such as this, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The cost of digital conversion is huge, particularly for the regional television industry. A typical regional broadcaster maintains about three or four studio complexes, six transmitters and up to 50 translators in each aggregated market. Compare this with a metropolitan station, which may have just one studio complex, one transmitter and a few translators to get to the same population base.Regional TV owners estimate it will cost as much as $250 million dollars to buy digital equipment for each aggregated market. Maintaining analog broadcasts during the eight-year simulcast period could cost as much as $175 million for the regional stations. One network employee told me that these estimates are extremely inaccurate and that the prices appear to be rising every day. Indeed, they are not even certain which equipment they will be buying—whether it will be the European or American format. Certainly, as far as regional broadcasters are concerned, this policy is no giveaway. For the more profitable capital city networks, 10, 9 and 7, it could be described as a very generous policy.It is true that the networks will have exclusive use of broadcast linked datacasting services. They have also been given a guarantee that it will be 10 years before another free to air television channel is licensed. So there are some big wins for the networks in this but, when you weigh it up against other considerations, perhaps it can be justified. When the analog service is phased out, the broadcasters will hand back an equivalent share of the broadcasting spectrum to what they are gaining under this policy, so it can be more fairly described as a spectrum swap rather than a giveaway.Provision has also been made in the bills for the networks to be charged fees for any data services they provide—but those fee levels are the important thing. Once again, it is not necessarily a giveaway—it depends crucially on the fee structure. There is provision in the bills for networks to be charged for data services they provide in future. Clearly under the policy there were only going to be winners and losers. The three major networks have a reasonably good business record. They are Australian owned companies and they invest heavily in Australian programming. They will be required to continue to meet Australian content rules while digital TV is introduced. Most of those complaining about the networks' so-called `win' include Fairfax, News and Optus, all with foreign interests. Telstra is also likely to be largely foreign owned if the government succeeds with its plan to sell off the remainder.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—That's wrong!KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Why? What is the figure?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It is well below 30 per cent.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Calare will ignore those members on my right.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I used the term `largely'—35 per cent to me is fairly large.The 10-year freeze on new entrants into the market has reportedly been criticised by the Department of the Treasury as an unnecessary restriction on services to the consumer. According to newspaper reports, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Administration, the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism and the Office of Regulation Review have all expressed a range of concerns in relation to this policy. The central criticism appears to be that the networks are being given an unfair advantage in establishing and controlling what is expected to be the most dominant new media. The loudest critics have understandably been those other companies who would like a share of the market.I will certainly look closely at any amendments the opposition may put forward. I have noted the one that has been tabled today, one part of which I have a fair degree of interest in; I will allude to that in a moment. I support the thrust of these bills. As I said, they lay the groundwork for the existing television broadcasters to begin planning but allow the flexibility that is essential. But that flexibility and the lack of detail really do concern me. Whether it will eventually become a successful communications policy will depend on what decisions are taken down the track—and that is a worry. Decisions will need to be taken to ensure there is wide-ranging competition in the datacasting services. Already we see conflict appearing about what this policy will actually mean.The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the ABC was keen to use its extra broadcast capacity to provide additional regional television services, if it has the money. The dispute over what the networks will actually be able to provide does need to be sorted out. To say that it does allow multi-channel services tends to back up the argument that it is a goldmine for the networks and will be unfair to pay TV operators. If, however, a Melbourne network can argue it will provide a new service that no-one else is providing and that pay TV operators are not interested in providing—for example, a regional Geelong news service or, say, one for the Central Coast or the Blue Mountains from Sydney—then I would support the network's right to be able to do that. I assume this apparent vagueness over what the networks will actually be able to provide is an indication that at this stage the exact rules have not yet been defined.It will be highly successful if regulations can be made to ensure multi-channel services may be offered in such a way that provides a new service to viewers in the individual station's market, rather than just another entertainment channel and source of revenue for the networks. As for the ABC being able to provide regional services—something I and other residents west of the mountains would strongly support—it is already obvious the ABC is going to need extra assistance from the government to just get its existing service converted to digital. If that extra assistance is not forthcoming in enough quantity, then this policy could devastate the ABC or see it unable to take advantage of the new technology.We hear the minister saying the ABC will have to rely on property sales to help meet the full cost of conversion to digital. One would seriously hope that there really is the potential within the ABC's property portfolio to raise the sort of money needed. One of my great concerns is that many regional viewers are going to find they no longer get television at all once digital is introduced. At the moment, many people in my electorate live in fringe viewing areas and sometimes their picture is not of a good quality, yet they persevere because it is the only signal they can get.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—They will get better quality out of this.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—You get excellent quality, but it falls away the moment you get outside that edge. Digital TV, as far as I am told, has no fringe viewing areas. You either get a signal or you do not. It is highly likely that many thousands of viewers in regional Australia will find themselves without TV once the analogue transmitters are turned off. It sounds a little like the analog phone issue, doesn't it?A number of points need to be made about this. Firstly, the government must give concessions to regional broadcasters to allow them to establish new transmitter and translator sites when they are needed. The member for Dobell issued a challenge, I understand, to the government to guarantee this sort of coverage for the regional areas. I argue that a subsidised satellite option should be offered to those viewers who can demonstrably show that they are going to suffer from this lack of digital coverage a la mobile phones.Secondly, the existing analog signal should not be turned off until such times as it can be guaranteed that it will not leave significant numbers of people without any television services. Those of us who have witnessed the delocalising and downsizing of regional television as a result of the former government's aggregation policy would sincerely hope there are no further cutbacks. Local news is really all that is left of regional television today. In most cases that runs on a very small budget, with generic stories shared around each network of little local relevance. Now even national Aussie Rules reports and promos are jammed into the local news services, allegedly as part of local news coverage.MG4LEEMr Lee—Compulsory.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Compulsory. It is further dilution of localism. So if the regional operators are serious about requesting taxpayer assistance to get this signal up to benefit them, let them get more serious about local program content. I mean regional local program content. I mean current affairs. I mean coverage of council business—MG4LEEMr Lee—The local member!KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Coverage of the local member more often—four times a week instead of twice. I can also guarantee that, if the cost of digitalisation proves too expensive for regional broadcasters and there is insufficient government support, then what remains of local programming will be axed. They will become total slave stations of the networks—cash machines, but locally irrelevant.Finally, it is highly likely that the introduction of this new and very powerful form of datalink broadcasting will add to the pressure for review of national media laws. The ability of digital TV to bring selective news and information such as classified ads into people's living rooms instantly is likely to see the demise of more newspaper titles, while others obviously already see the writing on the wall and are embarking on online services.The decisions to be taken in the future on media ownership and competition will be of greater importance than this bill. This government toyed with the idea of changing media policy but decided it was too sensitive and has put it off at least for this term. I hope that before the next election both sides will spell out their media policies in detail and let us know what changes they would like to see so that voters can make up their own minds on who they believe will best deliver an industry that is as diverse and as competitive as possible but ensures that regional television remains viable and relevant.Looking at this second reading amendment from the opposition, I tend to support at least paragraph (7), which states that the legislation `does not provide sufficient recognition for the particular infrastructure issues faced throughout regional areas'. The bill is going up every day. They are in a quandary. Regional television requires a longer lead period before it and the taxpayer commit to supporting the establishment of this hugely new and expensive infrastructure. With those reservations, I commend these bills to the House.11:34:004569Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 and the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 are about implementing the government's policy on digital terrestrial television broadcasting. In a highly technical article I was reading recently one sentence stood out. It said:Digital transmission is a technology that will take television broadcasting well into the 21st century.Broadcasters, would-be broadcasters and techno junkies might read such a statement and simply agree. Governments, however, need to appreciate this fact and formulate policy to include ordinary people in this future. This is what the government has done. Not only does the coalition's digital conversion policy seek to fairly manage the vested interests of the current and aspirant broadcasters, but it squarely focuses on the interests of consumers, the viewers. The policy reflected in the bills before the House rightly has the viewers' interests as the key imperative.The discussion in the media about the government's policy on digital television conversion has centred on the television industry players and media mogul manoeuvrings. Some commentators have claimed that existing TV broadcasters are receiving a mammoth gift from the government, that the policy suboptimises the economic returns to the government for the spectrum and that the policy framework is both helpful and unhelpful to the entry of new services and products, depending on who you talk to.There has been a lot of talk about the rights of pay TV operators versus commercial television owners and the cost of digitising productions and broadcasting technology. These vested media interests talk about their perceived wins and losses within the industry from the policy framework that is at the heart of these bills. One thing is certain—the media players themselves are certainly not lacking a voice to push their pecuniary interests. They have their own products for that. In language the media understands, let me simply state a newsflash: `Dunkley MP bats for viewers in TV change.' Our first priority has to be what is best for consumers like the people of Dunkley. Back in March the Minister for Communications and the Arts (Senator Alston) said:We want to make sure that all Australians get the benefits of the exciting new applications and opportunities that digital television offers.Established broadcasters have a critical role to play, as do . . . the ABC and SBS.People in Dunkley are pretty avid TV viewers. Our community welcomed the introduction of black and white TV in 1956-57 and colour TV in 1975. We watch about three hours a day on average, each of us. Over four in 10 of us use television news and current affairs as our major source of information, as against newspapers being used by three in 10 of the local Dunkley community. Ninety-nine per cent of homes in Australia have television, 77 per cent have videos and more than a third have personal computers, rising to three out of every five for families with teenage children.Australians have always been early adapters to new technology. No more graphic illustration is provided than in the case of mobile telephones, where Australians rank only second to Scandinavians in the speed with which we have taken up this great communications tool. In the use of the Internet, too, we are up there, with about 40 per cent of us accessing it each day.Digital technology and high definition television offer many advantages over the current analog systems. These include better picture quality and surround, and CD quality sound in the form of high definition TV; HDTV is the jargon. It is wide screen technology, similar to going to the movies while you are at home. The Internet can be linked to set top boxes so a TV receiver becomes `interactive' or a centre of information in the home. Valuable spectrum can be more efficiently used. If you are a mad keen follower of Australian cricket, you may be able to access detailed statistics about the performances of Mark Taylor instead of relying on bits of stats coming from Channel 9 on the screen or through its commentators.Because the United States and the United Kingdom have already got the jump on us, and countries like Canada and Japan are moving to introduce digital television, Australia cannot afford to delay passing these bills if we want to keep a modern, high quality terrestrial broadcasting system. By May next year, the top 10 markets in the US will have digital television. This will create a huge demand for transmission and other equipment. Without the action taken by the government, we would have seen this technology filtering its way into our Australian television environment in an unregulated, unmanaged way to the disadvantage of viewers. To keep the analog system as the only method of terrestrial transmission would mean that TV networks would eventually be condemned to running endless repeats. Maxwell Smart is funny, particularly the episodes directed by my namesake, but my limit is seeing episodes once or twice every couple of years at most.Under these bills, digital television services in markets like Melbourne will commence in 2001. There will be a simulcast period until at least 31 December 2008. Over this eight-year period it will allow consumers to convert to digital television receivers. Most importantly, a review will be undertaken in 2005. If the take-up of digital services by consumers is faster or slower than we anticipate, we have the opportunity to adjust the timetable. Viewers in Dunkley will benefit from the enhancement of programs during the transitional period. For instance, different camera angles might be shown when Richmond takes on Collingwood, with fans able to move between different views as enhanced programming. However, multi-channelling, like the ability to watch a number of games or the provision of multiple or separate channels by commercial television broadcasters, will be prohibited during this eight-year period. This measure takes account of the huge investment made by subscription television service providers under the former Labor government regime.Free to air broadcasters which seek to provide advanced information services linked to programming will have to pay additional datacasting service charges. This is not a free kick. For example, if after Matthew Richardson kicks another goal for Richmond you can click on him and order a pair of his Lotto brand footy boots, join the Tigers supporter group, buy his favourite breakfast cereal or make an appointment with his hairdresser, this will be a new value added product, an added information service. Broadcasters should and will pay for the privilege of this new revenue stream. There are no free kicks.Already there is evidence that consumers want large TV sets with higher quality sound. This is what the market is telling us. Since 1990 the proportion of TV sets sold that are 62 centimetres or above has risen from 12 per cent to over 25 per cent. The member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) would know about some of the home entertainment products being made available which centre around the larger television screens.High definition television, or HDTV as it is called, will gradually introduce so-called standard definition television services (SDTV) with this `multiview' capacity we have mentioned earlier. Regulations will specify the extent to which these programs should be provided in HDTV or represent multi-channelling. A failure to meet these obligations will result in the cessation of licences authorising digital transmission. For the loan spectrum, it will be a matter of `use it or lose it'. At the end of the simulcast period, the analog service spectrum will be recovered by the government and made available to the marketplace.Local Dunkley retailers say Frankston and Mornington consumers are early adaptors to technology, provided they are convinced of the benefits. Mr Barry Prior of Stanman Retravision in Beach Street, Frankston, says that local residents tend to replace their TVs a bit quicker than the seven- to 10-year time frame that has been embraced in this policy. Mr Shane Roberts, who runs Mornington's Retravision store, placed a good ad in The Flier newspaper recently. Shane pointed out that conventional televisions will not necessarily go out of date. Set top boxes for analog TVs can eliminate ghosting and incorporate digital sound, and offer the benefits of those advanced information services I spoke of earlier. Shane made the excellent point that high definition television has twice the horizontal resolution with twice as much detail on each line, saying that looking at a high definition television screen is like comparing a colour photo in a high gloss magazine with one in a newspaper.For a new product to make its predecessor obsolescent, there must be an easily discernible difference between the two. The improvements in picture quality and sound are key selling points. The first high definition television sets in Japan sold for many thousands of dollars a number of years ago. Today, the cost is down to under $4,000. By 2005 or 2008, the price is likely to decline massively, mirroring the experience of mobile telephony. Purchasing a set top box is a possible alternative for consumers.In the 1998 budget, the government announced that the ABC would receive $20.8 million over five years and SBS $17.7 million in the same period to assist these public broadcasters in changing from analog to digital transmission. The ABC has the opportunity to realise existing underutilised assets to finance the balance of the corporation's digital conversion investment. The prospect of early multi-channelling for public broadcasters holds out exciting possibilities for the ABC and SBS. For commercial television broadcasters, the cost of conversion is huge. Not only have capital changeover costs been estimated at about three-quarters of a billion dollars but licence fees will continue to be paid to the Australian Broadcasting Authority, on top of which, if they choose to embrace the advanced information services, further licensing fees will need to be paid. As I said earlier, there are no free kicks. In 1997 these broadcasting fees totalled $147 million for capital city broadcasters, or almost nine per cent of gross revenue.The government wants technology to serve us all better. For this to happen, the goalposts must be realistic and known in advance. These bills and amendments before the House from the government meet this criterion. I commend them to the House.11:45:004572Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—There were some interesting comments made by some of the previous speakers in defending the government's policy in relation to the digital television allocation. There is an argument that it is a free gift. Those members who have defended the allocation of spectrum to the free to air broadcasters have said that, for the free to air broadcasters to take advantage of the allocation, they will have to make extraordinary capital investments in order to be able to provide the service—and that would probably have been the case anyway.I want to dwell on a couple of areas where I consider there to be some substantial problems. I just want to declare an interest—I am actually a former Galaxy television subscriber. My Galaxy television subscription ran out when Galaxy stopped broadcasting after it got itself into financial trouble. I would have thought that the government should have looked very closely at the pay TV fiasco as a role model for what not to do. The pay TV fiasco, particularly in Western Australia, has been an extraordinary failure. In Western Australia, we have seen the Telstra roll-out finish, which meant that people who were endeavouring to subscribe to Foxtel were unable to do so because Foxtel services were then not available in particular areas. In my electorate, for instance, substantial areas cannot get Foxtel subscription services. Now, with the absence of Galaxy, satellite pay TV services from the Galaxy broadcasts are also now unavailable, although at this point in time I imagine that many former Galaxy TV subscribers are receiving the signal from Austar. This will be scrambled within the next few days and will therefore be unavailable. At this stage, there is no indication as to whether or not any other particular organisation is interested in taking up Galaxy's subscribers.In my view, what is going to happen is that there will be a lot of people, particularly in my area of Perth, who will find themselves with translator boxes sitting around on top of their television or stereo systems which actually do nothing but which presumably belong to whoever is the successor to the Galaxy television broadcasting service. They are no doubt also going to have satellite dishes on their roofs which are useless. That in itself will be a very visible symbol of the failure of government policy in the pay TV area—a policy that evolved over a particular period of time but in many instances was heavily influenced by the interests of the free to air broadcasters of television, and that is one of the great problems.The other aspect of pay TV is—as one particular visiting British expert on pay television has made a very strong comment on—the poor quality of some of the subscription services that are available. As a subscriber to Galaxy television, I found that I never watched some of the channels that were available. It seemed that they were just stocking fillers. I like country music, but I could not see a huge section of the population wanting to subscribe to Country Music Television. I suspect that that channel, along with a number of other channels that were thrown in with the bundle, were in fact stocking fillers to make it appear that it was a good deal.The member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) was an apologist in previous debates over the cessation of the analog mobile telephone service. The member for North Sydney was an apologist for the early mistake by the Labor government in the agreement they made with Vodafone, which was then compounded by this government's decision to go ahead without checking and without being able to change its policy and make a decision on what would have been the best thing for consumers—that is, the analog and digital mobile services running side by side, providing the sort of choice that would allow people to pick the service that provided them with the best mobile telephone service.Even the government's own experts—the people who have been charged with going around the country and analysing consumer and public responses to the government's policy—concede that the digital service in mobile telephony will not be able to cover the entire continent and, in many instances, may well be inferior to the mobile telephony service provided on the analog network. Australia seems to be going in a different direction from that of the biggest market for mobile telephony, the United States, where analog and digital mobile telephony run side by side. In the absence of an agreed standard on HDTV, Australia is already establishing a regime, which in my view is going to be a straitjacket in the delivery of a digital television service.Interestingly, one of the members—I forget which one now—mentioned the fact that, if you sold the spectrum in an auction to interested parties, that would provide less control. That is an interesting concept when one considers that the government itself is considering privatising the rest of Telstra. The argument used in a number of instances by those who are opposed to that is that as a consequence of selling the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, many of Telstra's universal service obligations—the expectation of service delivery in areas of low profitability or high service costs—will disappear into the void as Telstra operates purely and simply as a corporation endeavouring to return the best possible proceeds to its shareholders.The Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) shakes his head. I would be interested to know what the view of the Minister for Finance and Administration is in relation to the pay TV fiasco. He would have had a view in the earlier days when this was being debated.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It was a disaster.QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—Yes, of course, it was a disaster.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It was a Labor disaster.QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—The interesting thing is that two years after the election of this government we have seen the disappearance of one of the players in pay TV service delivery. Many of my constituents cannot get Foxtel because Foxtel is not available in their area. Optus Vision, when I last rang and asked them when they were coming to Perth, gave a two-year horizon—if possible—but said they were going to Adelaide before Perth. We have a situation where, in essence, pay TV will be unavailable to many of my constituents.Free to air services in my electorate are not exactly the best. Many of my constituents find it difficult to get a good picture on free to air services. One of the reasons why many subscribed to Foxtel was that it provided a cable delivery of free to air television signals, providing signal strength that would allow people to see free to air television that they were unable to get through normal broadcasting services. As a person who represents people who live in a metropolitan electorate, this is a disgrace. We have a similar problem with radio services. For instance, I cannot receive AM radio signals on particular stations at all.At this stage in our development of broadcasting legislation and broadcasting technology, that is an absolute disgrace—the fact that my constituents cannot get free to air TV signals of sufficient strength because of the layout of the Perth metropolitan area and the positioning of the transmitters or they cannot get, for instance, AM signals sufficiently strong enough for them to be able to receive AM radio broadcasts in their homes. This is the ludicrous aspect of broadcasting legislation or administration and technology that in many instances, in places like my electorate, leads consumers to be totally exasperated with the people responsible for public policy on this issue.The digital revolution has been talked about—in many instances prattled about—ad nauseam over the years. I would like to point out that, from the years back when people were previewing what sorts of products would be available as a result of the `digital revolution', there are many instances where some of them have not come to pass, some of them are not likely to, and some of them probably have been tried and have failed.One that will be of interest to people who have kept an observing role in relation to digital service and broadcasting technology and services would be interactive TV; the previous speaker, the member for Dunkley (Mr Billson), mentioned that you are able to click on players and get their playing statistics while you are watching a particular game. The interesting aspect of interactive television is that in some instances where it has been trialled it has been a failure. There are going to be various types of models that are either going to be acceptable to consumers or not.A classic example of technological decision making that went wrong was in the 1980s when we had the great competition between Beta and VHS video cassettes. In the end one standard prevailed over the other, obviously to the chagrin of those people who had invested in the other technology. Also, in the 1980s we saw the advent of laser television discs; something that was looked upon as going to provide an extraordinary revolution in the reproduction quality of television sounds and pictures. Interestingly, out of the different types of models ranging from the RCA to the National Panasonic model, video discs, a la 1980s style, have been a tremendous failure as a product that gained general acceptance in households. As far as Australia is concerned, there has been little to no penetration of video disc products at this stage, although the DVD video disc product is relatively new and it will be interesting to see how readily accepted as a piece of technology that is in households.The other thing that was mentioned as part of the digital revolution was the Internet. Much has been said about the Internet. The term `Internet' encapsulates a wide range of different services. It may interest government members to know that we are going to be able to see television broadcasting services on the Internet. And this is going to happen on the Internet in a reasonable time frame. At present, we know it is possible to receive digital radio on the Internet. Those who have a sufficiently powerful processor in their computer and the relevant software can listen to about 1,000 radio stations which originate from all around the world, principally from the United States and the UK. But there are many new radio stations appearing each day.This competition is going to be precisely the input into broadcasting that is going to make much of what the government is endeavouring to do with its digital television legislation irrelevant. One of the interesting facets of free to air television service delivery is the fact that as a service it is declining in popularity. Less and less free to air television is being watched. The interesting thing about this is that in endeavouring to cement what is considered to be the prevailing free to air service into its legislation, the government is encapsulating in its legislation elements of broadcasting which are becoming an anachronism. It is interesting to note that people are watching less free to air television as a proportion of their leisure time and they are looking at other types of activity—in particular, surfing on the Internet or computing.Another facet of the Internet of interest to those who have had a look at how readily technology is being taken up in homes is that a smaller proportion of Australians who own modems are using the Internet. It is an interesting facet that in many cases people are not surfing the Internet at all; they have got home computers that in most cases are being predominantly used for games that are on CD-ROMs or have been installed from discs. What we have is a situation in which the government, in endeavouring to establish a new administrative regime for digital television service delivery, has already incorporated into that something which is becoming less and less popular, and is likely to become an anachronism.The argument over whether consumers want to have high definition television or multi-channelling is an interesting one. For instance, in the United States, when television broadcasters were surveyed on whether or not they thought consumers would prefer to have multi-channelling or high definition television, they suspected that multi-channelling was probably what people really wanted. I suspect that is probably the case too. I believe, as Alvin Toffler predicted back in his work Future Shock in 1970, that what we are going to see is a splintering of service consumer demand. This is the irony of the government's legislation; it solidifies in its own legislation something that is already becoming an anachronism.What we are seeing with the preservation of the free to air regime that we have at present is the exclusion of new entrants in free to air service delivery. Also, with its requirement that free to air services provide similar services on digital television to the services they provide now, the government is building into its legislation a use-by date that is far shorter than it realises. The difficulty will be that we will see a similar fiasco to the pay TV fiasco.The consumers of Australia are very reluctant to jump into new technology without thinking about it. It is an interesting facet that one of the strongest arguments against the government's legislation, against the regime it is now setting up, is the high cost to consumers. Consumers will be asked to invest in new televisions which have a substantial cost. The estimation of $3,000 for a new set is, I believe, an understatement. I believe that television sets of this quality will be in the $5,000 to $6,000 range. Already there are Australians who are investing in rear projection, large screen televisions for their homes so that they can watch movies in a home theatre environment. They are prepared to pay from $6,000 to $8,000 for a television set. But annual average expenditure on TV by the average consumer is around $100 per annum. I suspect that many find HDTV large screen format costs to be excessive. That is one of the problems which will, I believe, affect the way in which this particular regime will work.I am attracted to the amendment of the shadow minister, the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) because, in essence, it asks for wide public consultation to be undertaken before introduction of the regime that is envisaged in this legislation. I subscribe to that. That is probably a smarter thing to do than to jump into something that, as I said, already incorporates an anachronism by virtue of its reliance on current free to air service delivery.The former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, made an interesting comment when he referred to the choice in free to air as being a choice between four buckets of slop. At the same time I thought that was probably highly unfair, but given the quality of some pay tele vision services and some of the things that are offered I do not think he was that far off the mark. Many Australians have rejected pay TV service delivery because they thought the $50 a month or whatever it cost was not worth it. They have gone back to borrowing videos and paying the rental to watch movies instead of subscribing to the movie channels on the pay TV services.As happened in markets in the US and elsewhere and in the pay TV service debate, the competition between pay TV services probably revolved much more closely around telephony than it did around pay TV or television services. In my view, the roll-out by Telstra and its cessation after losses of many hundreds of millions of dollars was much more to do with telephony and the ability to have the cable network than it had to do with the delivery of services to consumers. What we have seen, in fact, is a race to provide telephony. In the US, as is the case elsewhere where there are cable pay TV markets, the relative turnover of cable TV compared with telephony is a minute fraction. Therefore, telephony obviously has a far greater effect.I think that the amendment proposed by the shadow minister deserves consideration. I know the government will not be happy to hear that. I know the government is anxious to have its legislation go through this session as swiftly as possible. It obviously wants to solidify the arrangement it has set up; an arrangement that some have called a free gift to free to air broadcasters and an effective straitjacket on the rights of consumers. The Liberal and National parties are supposed to be the parties of fair and open markets, of competition and free enterprise. Unfortunately, in this legislation they are cementing what is, in effect, a highly protectionist regime in the area of digital television services; a protectionist regime which will in fact exclude real competition in the industry for a very long time indeed. (Time expired)12:05:004575Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—It is a timely decision of the government to put the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 through the House. If Australia is to stay with the technology that exists in the world, then we must move forward. We must allow no further delay.I remember very clearly the introduction of FM radio in this country. Areas like my area of Townsville were denied that technology for many years. FM radio was used across the world for 30 years before it came to Townsville. Why should listeners in Townsville have been denied the quality of that service for so many years under that kind of government policy? It was just unsubstantiated—and so it is with digital television. The technology is there. Why should the people of Australia be denied the opportunity to access this brand-new and very exciting technology? I think this is a timely decision. It is one that we should move forward with as soon as possible.I would also like to say that a lot of credit has to be given to the minister who sponsored these bills—the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston). Senator Alston, as the minister for the information economy, is certainly very much across his portfolio. He understands the needs of Australians and understands what this might mean to our country. I also note that the government does not intend to repeat the debacle that was referred to earlier in this chamber—the mistakes in pay TV. Look at what has happened in that area. The people in the industry who know and understand the industry understand that the government policy that was introduced in relation to pay television was an unmitigated diaster. We saw the failure of the satellite services. We saw enormous amounts of money paid for something that was never going to be profitable. That we could have a system in this country which allowed two cables to be rolled out in parallel through the major metropolitan cities is certainly something that I find very inefficient indeed when a single cable system could have carried everything.This bill is good public policy. It is not about arrangements with certain media owners or certain groups; it is about preserving the free to air television system and preserving access to the free to air television system. It is also about the introduction of digital technology, which I believe will be the most significant advance in television since the introduction of colour. Remember back in 1975 when colour came to our screens? It was a fantastic achievement. That was something that took many years to come to Australia after it had been available in the rest of the world. Australia does not need to be behind the rest of the world. Our people should have access to the technology that is available now. The timeliness of this bill is evidence that this government intends to allow the people of Australia to access the latest technology.In relation to the technical details of digital broadcasting, I think the solution that the minister has proposed of allowing free use, for a time, of adjacent channels to the existing free to air broadcasters is a very good decision indeed. It was never possible to have two analog television channels running side by side because of the interference from either the upper or the lower side band, but it is certainly possible to run a digital channel next to an analog channel. The solution to put the digital program next door to the analog program is technically something that is most achievable and very welcome. With the digital broadcasting signal, in the future there are all sorts of other opportunities. Not only can you carry one channel; you may be able to carry multiple channels, although I am personally not in favour of the digital system being used for multiple channels for free to air broadcasters. I think you can have all sorts of added enhanced facilities with datacasting and high definition television.What a contrast to the industry that I was involved in many years ago. I can remember the technology that was available when I was in the industry when, on the morning after Harold Holt was lost at sea at Portsea, one of the first ever direct telecasts came up the link from the south to Townsville, and it was the responsibility of the local television station to broadcast the outside broadcast coming out of Portsea. I was the only person in the television station at that time. It was my responsibility when I arrived at the television station early in the morning to turn on the transmitters, to line up the transmitters, to make sure that the signals were going out okay. I then had to record all the announcements that would be used during that broadcast. When I put the station on the air, I had to be the vision switcher, the audio switcher, the technician, the guard and answer the phone as well. In these days that would never happen. In a way there is some nostalgia there. These days we are tied to control rooms in Sydney and Melbourne, which is a shame. It gives me a very solid basis for telling the House of the importance of maintaining a quality free to air service.Current research is showing that free to air television is the main source of news for most people. Some 42.7 per cent of people who are surveyed indicate that they get their main source of news for the evening or the day from their free to air television service. I also alert the House to the fact that the free to air television providers and their associate companies are the main producers and funders of Australia's film and television programming. I think it is very important to make sure that that industry is supported. I am sure that members of the opposition would also agree with that.Again, very importantly, free to air television is the only source of TV news and entertainment for low income groups in our country. It would be a sad day indeed if there were discrimination against the free to air networks in favour of the pay television networks, because that would be discriminating against the low income groups in the community who cannot afford to access pay television. I think it is very important to maintain a quality free to air service that is there to serve all Australians. This bill that we have before us this morning will certainly bring certainty for both consumers and the free to air networks. It lays out clearly what the government's objectives are, what the rules are, when the services will start, when the transition period will be and what will happen at the end of that transition period. I think that certainty will be welcomed both by consumers and the industry alike.Existing broadcasters certainly need time and protection to justify the investment that they are going to have to make in digital technology because all the transmitters will have to change, the links will have to change, the video recording equipment will have to change and studio equipment will have to change. All of it will have to change. We are asking these free to air broadcasters to make this change, but at the same time we must make sure that we protect their investment in making that change, otherwise it will not occur. That is why it is very important to have clearly spelt out the transition time and to allow a transition time that is sufficient for the broadcasters to recover their investment.I am very concerned with what the opposition and the Democrats are currently apparently supporting. They are supporting a change from the government's 10-year transition period, which would end in the year 2008, back to a transition period that would end in the year 2005. That is not sufficient time for the industry to justify the enormous capital investment that it is going to have to make to provide this brand-new exciting service to the people of Australia. I ask the Democrats and the opposition to consider that they ensure the free to air industry is viable. It has to have the ability to make an investment and then recover that investment. I would ask them to look seriously at the recommendations that are currently in the industry that it needs a 10-year transition period to make sure that we get this wonderful new service.I want to clearly put the industry on notice in relation to the delivery of digital television in regional areas. I believe that people in regional areas should not be second-class citizens of this country. I believe the transition to digital television should happen in regional areas at the same time as it happens in the capital cities. The process is scheduled to begin in the year 2001, and I see no reason why that starting date should not occur also in the regional areas. I put the broadcasters on notice that I certainly will be doing what I can to make sure that the process occurs in the regional areas in parallel with what is going to happen in the major metropolitan cities.I also put the broadcasters on notice that this investment in new technology must not be an excuse to further reduce local content. I have been very sad to see over the years more and more stations around the country becoming basically slaves to control rooms in Sydney. That is not the way that the television system in our country should be going. It is very sad to go from the time when I was in the television industry where I could basically stop the program any time of the night or day and insert something of local significance to the time now where it is not possible to stop anything because you are timed as to what is coming out of a control room in Sydney. It is not good for our country that the television stations which use a scarce public resource—namely, the spectrum—should be able to use that resource in the way that they currently do.I would like to see the return of more localism to television. I think it is in the interests of local communities, and certainly it is in the interests of rural Australia, because what happens in local communities can be quite different from what happens in the broader metropolitan cities and so on. I think that regional viewers are entitled to coverage of local events.On a technical matter, I do think that it is very important that we preserve the ability for the free to air channels to move to high definition television. What that means is that we should allow them the opportunity to have enough spectrum in that seven-megahertz channel that will allow the broadcasting of a high definition television signal. I do believe that that is the way that the system will go, the way the technology will go, and we should be able to preserve that. This legislation in fact does preserve that.I now issue a warning to consumers, to customers, to people who own television sets. When this was first announced, the sale of analog television sets simply stopped. The reason apparently for that was that consumers felt that the new technology would be here tomorrow. It will not be here tomorrow. Those who are thinking about this new technology should have every confidence at this stage to go and purchase another analog set if that is their wish.I also think that, by delaying the purchase of a digital television set, the price of those sets is going to fall. I do not agree, because of what I have seen in the industry, that we are heading down the track of having sets that will be worth $3,000. Digital television is really no different from analog television other than some microprocessors. All of the scanning circuits, the video IF and sound IF and so on are all the same; the difference is just the processing of the signal that is being transmitted, which is done by some microprocessor chips. So, in that sense, there is no reason for digital sets to be more expensive.As an aside, I am well aware that, while this technology will produce perfect pictures, sometimes the viewers do not expect that at all. Sometimes you find that viewers are happy as long as the picture moves and talks. That quite amazes me because I know that you can in fact get much better quality pictures.Finally, I alert the House to the danger of the direction that the Senate is going in. If the Senate does not pass this legislation by 1 July, then the starting date of 1 January 2001, which would be very appropriate as it is the centenary of Federation, will be likely to be put back by another year. The Senate runs the danger of making the country wait another year for digital television. That is what alarms me about these amendments that the Labor Party put up today in relation to wider public consultation. So I ask the Senate and the opposition to think about that. I think the people of Australia are entitled to a quality new technology service, and I would like that to start on 1 January 2001.12:21:004578Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—I support the proposals contained in the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 . I oppose any amendments that seek to change them. I do so for some fairly fundamental reasons, and they are as follows. Australia already has four free to air television channels in most parts, or certainly in the cities, and varying fewer numbers in country areas such as I represent. If anybody believes that the imposition of additional charges on the providers of those free to air signals will remain with the provid ers—in other words, that we will be able to rip some more money off the rich—they do not understand the capitalist system.I make the same point when we talk about taxation. When we charge fuel tax to a trucking operator, any idea that he does not put a profit margin on it and charge it on to the person consuming his services is an argument that he has got to go broke. Any government which wants to rip some more money off the television free to air people, believing that they will not charge their advertisers and that their advertisers will not mark up their profit on the products they advertise to accommodate that extra cost, is silly.It is a fundamental argument, when governments add charges to providers of services throughout Australia, that they pass them on and the consumer pays. I put an argument to a journalist this morning that if you want to collect $25 billion through our present tax system, considering the number of times that a profit margin is applied to that tax in the system, the consumer pays $30 billion for $25 billion. With a GST where it does not build into the cost, the consumer would pay $25 billion. That is a little outside this debate, except that, when you talk about charges for the spectrum—and I support the concept of the government charging for that resource to ensure that it is available basically to the highest bidder—then you do so assuming that those charges will be passed on to a consumer.In every other direction we are going to do that and there is an argument emanating from the opposition that that should be done sooner rather than later. I think people accept that a free to air television service of about four stations for a capital city, at Australia's population level, is something they are entitled to. If there is to be a change in technology which will upgrade that service—and that is the history of life today—then there is no reason for the government to say that because there is a change in technology we should apply another charge.If, as a result of this technology, more revenue is attracted to the TV stations which provide the free to air service, then the government's revenue will improve because we already apply a licence fee to the licence they get to transmit free to air by whatever mechanism, be it analog or digital, and any increase in their revenues, as I understand it, increases their licence fee. So there is a direct relationship between revenue and their licence fee—the tax they pay and pass on—but it is relative. In other words, their incomes increase with increased revenue and so does government revenue; whereas, of course, if you just add an additional charge for change of spectrum, then that must be applied to existing revenue.One of the great advantages for government in terms of this marketable product called `the spectrum' which is available for all forms of communication is that, when digital transmissions are introduced and eventually replace analog transmissions, there will be a great narrowing of the demand on the spectrum that is needed—meaning all that spectrum each side of the channel provided for the pay TV station—once there has been sufficient acceptance of the new technology by the viewer, which they will demonstrate by buying a digital TV set. Then the government will have some very substantial assets within the spectrum to sell off. They cannot do that while we have a continuing analog service.It is an interesting challenge to say to the opposition: if you make the going too tough for the TV stations, the free to air providers, and they say, `Go bowl your hoop; we're going to stay with analog,' how will you ever get the opportunity to sell off all that surplus spectrum? In business you do cost-benefit studies. In business you occasionally put out a loss leader for the purpose of actually making more profit. When one addresses the fundamentals of this situation, the reality is that we have to entice the free to air operators into this market as much as they may wish to be there.In all of that, the free to air people are pressuring the government to actually add to their profit capacity through this medium. They say that they should be able to retain the breadth of the spectrum and use the additional channels to turn a profit by competing with other people whom we have told must pay for access to the spectrum. Recently, as I read in the paper, a group of them paid something like $350 million by way of auction for part of that very desirable medium.The government's response to that is to say, `No. We are quite happy to give you apples for apples.' We accept the fact that there has to be a period—in the consumers' interests, not in the TV stations' interests—where there are parallel broadcasts. There was a much more cavalier approach to it in my electorate where the TV stations would be much better off turning off analog and turning on digital. Of course, most of the consumers would not be able to see the new programs. That is roughly what happened as digital transmission from satellites was introduced in my electorate. It was done in a fairly brutal fashion and people were forced to spend their money buying alternative black boxes to handle the signal and translate it into their analog sets.It is to the credit of the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, that, in recognising this, he and the minister at the table, the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey)—he had to sign the cheque—convinced the cabinet to grant $750 per consumer of subsidy to assist them in that purchase. It was not an obligation on the government because it was in fact a commercial decision made by licensed suppliers of TV information, but the government did it. Through the minister, the government moved heaven and earth to assist me and others interested in this transmission to sort out the difficulties that arose as commercial considerations overrode the rights of people to have an adequate TV service in less populated areas. But that is a little bit outside the legislation.The point I want to make is that, in the interests of the consumers of Australia, we are giving them basically a 10-year window so that during that time both analog and digital transmissions are available to them. We expect that demand in particular will quickly run down the retail price of new digital sets and a period of no less than 10 years will be necessary for people to wear out sets which, in some cases, they have bought quite recently.So this is a consumer based piece of legislation. It is guaranteeing the viewing that people have become used to for a reasonable period while they adjust to the new technology, which they will do because it is better and because it is sensible, as they replace old sets, to buy into the new technology. I repeat the fact that it is not the TV companies that are the big winners out of this. They are going to be obliged to spend very large amounts of capital to create the new systems. They are going to be obliged to continue to run their old system in parallel—even if the only additional cost were power and maintenance, that would be significant—so that the consumers of Australia get what they think is their right, and which I support. If it is done any other way or if the period is shortened, the loser will not necessarily be the TV companies, it will be the consumer, because all of those who have not yet been able to replace their set will suddenly see it turn black. That is silly; there is no need for it.The government has got it right. It is not charging the TV companies for the spectrum during the period of parallel use, notwithstanding that they will have a wider access to the spectrum. But the government will recover some of that prospectively when there is only digital transmission, which will narrow the spectrum required. Of course, we have told the TV companies that they cannot make additional profits from that arrangement. All of that is very sensible to me, and I therefore support the legislation.12:32:004580Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I have listened with some interest in the course of the past hour to the contributions of many members in respect of these bills before the House, the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 . I note that there is broad support for them. The support comes on the basis that, as a result of this decision by government, a quality of transmission will enter the Australian system that will certainly be far greater than we have to date. There is without the slightest doubt a need to ensure that those that are currently providing the service in free to air television are given some assistance to make the change. With the costs that that will involve, it is not going to be an inexpensive exercise. It requires a significant amount of investment and a dual process. You cannot simply one day close down the analog service and the next moment start up under the new digital proposal.In those circumstances, there was a need for government to ensure that there was a process that allowed a smooth and seamless transition. It is for that reason that the existing spectrum that will be required for the current analog service to be provided will remain there. The new spectrum is provided to the free to air transmitters and television companies, including the national company, the ABC. As a result of having that additional spectrum to be able to provide digital television broadcasting, there will be an opportunity to ensure that that far greater quality, that much clearer service, with all of the other benefits that can flow from the 21st century technology, actually comes to Australia and that Australians are given the opportunity to enjoy this high definition television.At an appropriate time, of course, there will be a need for those free to air companies and transmitters to vacate the spectrum that they currently occupy for analog. In their vacating that spectrum, that spectrum will become available for disposal, and there is a value attached to its disposal for the benefit of taxpayers. In those circumstances, I believe that the decision that the government has taken allows Australia to be one of the first countries in the world to provide this high definition transmission television picture and to be able to use that technology for the purpose of transmitting multiple programs to the benefit of Australian viewers. I acknowledge the contributions that have been made by all members to this debate, and I commend the bill to the House.GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—I understand that there other speakers who want to contribute on this debate and we are quite happy for them to do so. We have just had member arrive, so with the indulgence of the shadow minister on duty and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, we will be able to have the chairman of the government communications committee make his contribution to the debate before I proceed to sum up on behalf of the government. As they say in America, I cede the floor to the honourable member for Hinkler.12:37:004581Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I thank the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) and the shadow minister, the honourable member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith), for their indulgence in allowing me to give the committee's point of view at the end of this debate before the minister sums up. The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 are probably a defining moment in Australian television. We were not amongst the first in the world to have television. With black and white television, we waited to see what the world would do and then we embraced it. When we did embrace it, perhaps more Australians than most in the world adopted black and white television. The same went for colour television: we watched what the world did, we made our decision and we followed. When VCRs came onto the scene, we were one of the countries at the forefront of the adoption of the technology. Australia has been at the forefront of not only broadcast communications but also telecommunications.It should come as no surprise, then, that when the government considered the change to digital television it made a fundamental decision which will probably distinguish us from most countries around the world. We have decided to make high definition digital television the benchmark—not some form of multi-channelling but high definition television. By that we mean cinema quality broadcasting and CD quality sound—the highest technology—in television sets that are sold in this country. We are not doing it in a piecemeal way whereby we allow some television stations to look at having a mixture of enhanced digital television and we are not talking about multi-channelling. We are talking about having, with our two public broadcasters and our three commercial broad casters, a common standard that will be the best in the world.That cannot be achieved by auctioning the spectrum because you then create a completely uneven playing field. If you auction the spectrum, people are going to end up with insufficient spectrum to be able to deliver full high definition digital television or they will have some mishmash of enhanced television and multi-channelling. During this debate some people have talked about the British system. You have to recognise that in the UK they have BBC 1, BBC 2, Channel 4 and ITV. They also have enormous competition in Europe. So it does not come as any great surprise that the UK would decide to use multi-channelling to allow a diversity of programming. We do not require that level of activity in Australia because we have had a well-defined and controlled public broadcast sector, represented by the ABC and SBS on the one hand and three commercial television networks and their affiliates on the other.The charge has been made that we have given away the spectrum to the commercial television stations and that it should have been auctioned. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have put a responsibility on the commercial channels to deliver the highest quality digital transmission, the highest quality sound and, implied from that, the highest quality of sourcing of material and production. And we have done it within very strict time limits. By 1 January 2001, the three major networks will be required to have installed high definition digital television transmission in all the mainland capitals. By 1 January 2004, the regionals will be required to do the same. The cost of transmitters, translators, studios, equipment, OB vans and the like will involve the public and private television industry in about $700 million to $900 million of expense, to say nothing of the huge technical problems that will be involved in the installation of this equipment.There is another factor too. In the past, when we embraced black and white television and colour television, we had the benefit of knowing the mistakes made in other countries, which technologies were better and the like. On this occasion we will not have that luxury. We will be following very close on the heels of the Americans and the Europeans. Once the advisory committee which has been put in place by the minister advises on the technology to be adopted, the commercial capital city networks will have until 1 January 2001—not a very big time span—to install that equipment. That is a big ask, an expensive ask and a highly technical and involved ask.By 2004 their affiliates—albeit some of them linked corporately to those capital city networks, others by affiliation and others, independents, taking some of the programming—will be required to do the same thing. We should not underestimate the cost to provincial television stations. It will not be just a matter of one transmitter and a few translators in difficult spots in the capital city. It will mean in some instances up to 60 transmitters and translators—a very big ask.The government has mandated in this not to repeat the mistake the previous government made with mobile telephony where the digital signal has been found not to reach to the outer limits of the analog system, leaving great chunks of rural Australia—until the government's recent moves—without any mobile telephony. We did not wish to repeat that mistake when we came to the matter of regional high definition digital television, so it will be a requirement of all the provincial networks to reach to the same parameters as the existing analog signal. That will be a fairly big ask.The other thing we need to look at is how the channels will adapt to this system. Programming will provide difficulties. Arrangements will need to be made to feed the high definition digital signal to the affiliates in the provincial areas. The government is anxious, as I said, to make sure that what is seen in provincial areas is not some inferior service. Also there will be the opportunity for enhancement of the satellite service which goes to remote areas of Australia.The government has also allowed enhancement of existing programs. Where a core program goes to air—for example, it might be an AFL game or a cricket game—limited use of the multi-channelling facility will be allowed for enhancement. That will mean we can have scenes of the crowd, close-ups of the players, the last catch or the last goal, statistics and the commentators on screen. By a simple flick of a button, one will be able to move from the main game to the enhancement channel, and that will greatly increase the visual experience for the viewer and the involvement of that viewer in the particular football or cricket game. That, of course, does not just apply to sport. It can apply to other media as well. It will mean, however, that the government will insist that any enhancement must be related to the core program. The broadcaster will not be allowed, for example, to run two separate programs.There will be a few variations in the government's regulations. One will be that a limited but different regime may apply to the ABC and the SBS in so far as those particular networks conform to their charter. The ABC may well be allowed to use multi-channelling if, for example, it wished to show its educational programs or perhaps some of its arts programs—similarly with the SBS.In summary, the government has mandated that we will have the best high definition television in the world—with high definition video picture and with CD quality sound—with the continuing free to air broadcasters, two public broadcasters and three commercial broadcasters; that there will be special arrangements for the ABC; that there will not be multi-channelling; that there will be a regime in provincial Australia which allows those particular channels three years in which to install their digital technology; and, finally, that all of the channels will have an eight-year period in which they must broadcast both in digital and analog.We should not underestimate the cost of this to free to air broadcasters. This is another reason why the spectrum is being lent to the free to air broadcasters in that, during this co-transmission period, there will be a cost somewhere of the order of $20 million to $30 million a year to those broadcasters. So it is a big ask for them.I think the government has done an excellent job in putting this legislation together. The government's backbench committee fully supports the measure. It is a visionary concept that will put Australia at the front of the pack and will increase the quality of entertainment and quality of life for many Australians, both in capital cities and in provincial areas.12:51:004583Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 . I am very glad to see the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey), the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) and the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) in the chamber, some of whom will be following with, no doubt, some excellent speeches after mine.Australia has an excellent record in introducing new technology. We were the world leaders in taking up such new technology as the Internet and mobile telephones, as two examples. Australian television already compares well with its overseas counterparts. In Europe state broadcasters dominate the sector whilst in the United States the commercial sector rules. In Australia we have a very good balance between the commercial stations and the ABC and the SBS.Television came to Australia in the 1950s. A quarter of century later we got colour television. Now, a quarter of a century on, we are getting digital TV. Digital TV is as big a change as colour was. Viewers will get movie quality pictures and CD quality sound. It will also make new services, including interactive services, available to all Australians. The government is committed to ensuring all Australians can share in the benefits of the new technology as soon as possible.In order to achieve this we will need to provide prospective digital TV broadcasters a degree of certainty so they can make the very large investment needed for converting from analog to digital. This Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill is the first step in providing that certainty. Commercial and national broadcasters will submit implementation plans to the Australian Broadcasting Authority and to the minister for communications. The bill provides extra channels to existing broadcasters so that they can begin digital broadcasting in parallel to analog services. The government chose the right policy to allow the free to air providers to have that access now because of the huge capital investment that they are currently providing and that they will have to provide, as well as the software.The start date for digital TV for Australia is 1 January 2001 for the cities and 1 January 2004 for regional Australia. The difference takes into account the huge investment required to upgrade services in rural areas. Broadcasters which fail to meet these deadlines will lose their licence. Broadcasters will have to simulcast analog and digital TV services for up to eight years to allow consumers time to switch over. They will then return one of the channels to the Commonwealth.Digital TV allows for multi-channelling. Commercial stations will not be allowed to multi-channel, but this option may be open to the ABC and SBS. I certainly hope that that happens with the ABC. Unused channels will be put out to tender for datacasting. The charge for datacasting is part of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 , which the House is considering concurrently with the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill.Importantly, the needs of regional Australia and the people in my electorate of Richmond are addressed in this bill. There is, as I mentioned, a three-year period to allow broadcasters to set up in the bush. The government will also review whether any laws need to be changed to ensure that all regional areas get three commercial services as do the metropolitan areas. This is similar to what happened with aggregation back in the 1980s, but I do believe it will provide a far more secure and safe regime for those free to air providers, particularly in non-metropolitan areas. I commend this bill to the House.12:55:004584Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I thank the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) for his warm introduction. The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 is the most significant broadcasting bill that has come before this House for a generation. It is so because this bill provides us with new technology and new access to technology, particularly for the millions of television consumers in Australia. From a technical point of view, we are providing seven megahertz to each free to air television station, of which probably around 5½ to six megahertz will be available for high definition TV, which means that the average consumer in Australia will have access to cinema quality television and CD quality sound. But, more importantly, it opens up a whole new access regime. When we go to what is called digital terrestrial television broadcasting, DTTB, we will be using the available spectrum more efficiently than is the case with the existing terrestrial analog coverage. And that means that, for the current amount of spectrum that is used for the signal you receive at your home now, you will get high quality television and the signal that is coming across will be able to be used for other services such as data broadcasting or perhaps even multi-channelling.There are a number of key points about this legislation that I would like to bring to the attention of the House and then I will talk about the ramifications of this legislation, which will be of more significant interest to the House. Firstly, this legislation provides for a start-up date for the introduction of digital terrestrial television broadcasting of 1 January 2001. That is for major licences in metropolitan areas. They will need to use it, within certain constraints, for high definition TV and, at the same time, they will have the opportunity to use the leftover spectrum for databroadcasting. There will be an eight-year period for simulcast, which means that the average punter at home will have the opportunity to retain the signal on their normal television set until 1 January 2009. So do not rush out and sell your TV sets. The opportunity here is that with the development of new technology you will be able to put a set-top box on your existing television set and receive the digital signal and digital quality sound but you will not get high definition television coming through your screen because your old TV set is quite constrained.The next point about it is the opportunity to provide datacasting, and that is important. Datacasting is a vital part of the new technology era. As one of my colleagues, the member for Dunkley (Mr Billson), said a little earlier, datacasting means that you can be watching the football and you can use the computer icon control, which is in your hand, to place the icon on the player and up will come the player's home page and you will have the opportunity to buy boots from Rocca or visit the player's mum's kitchen and get the best recipe available from, say, the Richmond football club team. There will be a lot of opportunities to enter distant home pages on the World Wide Web. This is just the beginning of the opportunities with high definition television.There is a further provision in this bill which I would like to see changed—the prohibition on multi-channelling. As I said, with the spectrum that high definition TV uses, you can either run high definition TV so that you see Brian Henderson on Channel 9 news in full colour—every dot and creased out wrinkle—or you can have the opportunity to have perhaps six other TV channels in the normal analog coverage which you have now.The combination is this: currently, with the signal that we are getting at the moment at home, we can divide Channel 9 into six separate TV stations so you will have 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E and perhaps even 9F. On one station you might have Brian Henderson and on another station you might have A Current Affair and on another station you might have Max Walker and Wide World of Sport. So, all of a sudden, we have got an opportunity to turn our TV sets from being receivers of five free to air stations into receivers of up to 30, or perhaps even more, free to air TV stations.We have said they cannot do that. We have said they have got to use this new spectrum for high definition TV. And our major concern is that if Channel 9 can have a 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E then they will start to charge consumers for access to 9D, which might have 24-hour cricket, and of course that starts to impinge on the development of pay television services in Australia.Finally, and this is where I have a reservation as well, there are no new entrants until December 2008. I will be quite honest to this house and say that I would like to see a further new competitor in free to air television. However, I recognise that there are huge investments by the major television corporations in free to air television in Australia. Channel 9, Channel 10 and Channel 7 have between $1 billion and $5 billion of capital invested in free to air television stations, not to mention the extensive interests of the ABC and SBS. All of them seem to have a presence in my electorate and I am very aware of that. But, at the same time, I also recognise that with that significant capital investment there are future capital investments required and with the advent of digital television—high definition TV—the major metro stations are going to have to spend up to $700 million on new equipment, up to $50 million a year. I must add, though, that the proof of the pudding out of the United States, where high definition is preferred as opposed to the multi-channelling in Europe, is that the original estimates of the costs of the upgrade of the equipment were too high and the equipment is proving a little cheaper.What are the ramifications of this bill? The first point is that here is the greatest single effort to converge technology. All of a sudden you are going to have one unit in the house that will provide you with CD quality sound, that will provide you with a computer database and access to the World Wide Web and that will give you free to air television. And what that means is it will be the third most significant investment for every family in Australia after the house—the family home—and the car. That is what it means. So this is going to have a significant impact on consumer spending in Australia over the next few years.The other major ramification is in relation to cross-media ownership and ownership regulations. This bill makes cross-media laws and foreign ownership laws in Australia redundant. Why? Because you are seeing it come out now. For example, Channel 9 has entered into a strategic partnership with Microsoft—ninemsn, as they are promoting it. That is Channel 9 entering into a joint venture for datacasting or data information with a foreign owned company. That, of itself, shows that the spirit of the foreign ownership laws is made redundant.Secondly, in relation to cross-media arrangements, why can't Channel 7 enter into an agreement with Fairfax to provide data services so that once a story comes up on the news with Anne Sanders you can click the icon on the story and you get a full web page or two web pages or three web pages about that particular news item that came from Fairfax press. This is convergent technology; it is going to mean that within the next three years Australia's media ownership laws will become redundant. I am a great advocate for free trade in relation to media ownership. I believe you cannot just change one part of the media laws and not another. You have to change it holus-bolus. In this case it is a perfect opportunity, through market forces, to change media laws.The final point I want to make is in relation to content, particularly in relation to censorship. The World Wide Web is not censored, nor should it be. But we need to look at ourselves very carefully and ask ourselves the question: is it appropriate for us to try and regulate nudity and a range of other sexually related activities on television sets when you can watch Predator, with Arnold Schwarzenegger, where there are the most grotesque and humiliating and horrific scenes on television, and they remain unregulated? What sort of message are we trying to send our kids? It's okay to kill people in the most horrific and grotesque way but it's not okay to participate in what are meant to be natural activities. I think there is a strong message about content here and we need to be very careful in this new age of convergence not to regulate ourselves out of opportunities, but, more importantly, not to get carried away with censorship as it is currently being propounded.In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston. This has been an extremely difficult area of policy reform—a hugely difficult area—and he has negotiated through it quite correctly. I think the policy is good. If I had my druthers it would be a free and open market, but that was not to be the case. In this case we are making the most significant investment in free to air television in Australian history. I strongly support the bill. I strongly support the policy principles as laid down by the minister for communications, and I commend the bill to the House.13:07:004586Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—It is with great pleasure that I speak on the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 . It is a bill which, through amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992, will see Australia enter not only a new millennium but also the digital era of broadcasting. The long awaited introduction of digital terrestrial television broadcasting and the provision of high definition television pictures to make, amongst other things, the TV set become the one-stop shop in every home, covering every aspect from entertainment through to modern learning, information and financial services, has been heralded as a brave new world.But rather than continue to promote the pros of digital TV—and clearly they are as immense as the technology is dynamic—I want to outline to this House my desire and downright determination to see regional broadcasters, quality broadcasters, of the mould of NBN, Prime and Telecasters Australia Ltd get a fair and equitable deal to continue to service their audiences. All three regional telecasters operate within the Hunter and mid-north New South Wales coast as a part of that aggregated market. In particular, NBN and Prime in the Hunter place great emphasis on producing substantial TV hours per week of local content, be it news, coverage of key cultural and social events, through to local sport and providing community announcements—simply by being an integral part of our community.The local programs screened in the Hunter, under NBN, include one hour of local news and network news five days a week and 30 minutes on Saturday and Sunday; This Morning, which is about Hunter entertainment and infotainment; our own local Romper Room with Miss Kim and Big Dog, a preschool program; Community Noticeboard; sports telecasts from the Newcastle Knights, Newcastle Falcons and Surfest; the NBN tele thon—some will remember a young friend of mine, Hayley Tull, a cancer victim—which raised over $3 million this year; and local documentaries.Prime dedicates 30 minutes purely to local news five days a week, and on weekends they do a local news and network news mixture. It provides Regional News Australia, a 30-minute weekly program every Saturday; Our sporting country, which is 30 minutes of weekly regional based sporting activities; Community Noticeboard; regional TV specials; and, of course, one that we all know well, the Country Music Awards at Tamworth. These companies invest tens of millions of dollars in our local community by promoting our local community. All three Hunter telecasters actively promote and sponsor major sport, cultural and leisure events, plus charities within the community.In my meetings with both Denis Ledbury and his management team at NBN, along with Brad Jones and David Carr from Prime Television, the delivery of digital services to regional Australia and for regional broadcasters brings a lot of promise but also plenty of challenges and costs. Their thoughts on the matter extend further to the issue of retransmission of free to air TV services, which in the near future will also be brought before this House. That is a matter I have taken very much on board, having personally addressed the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) on it.My main aim as a part of this new digital ball game is to ensure regional television remains dynamic and continues to have a rock-solid commitment to local news and programming and be as much a vital part of the communities in the next century as they are now, and also to be a financially viable business in the process, employing local people and investing in local communities.I take on board the statement made by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, in their submission to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Committee just last month, which succinctly outlined the position that I am taking in relation to this bill and the real benefits that can and should bring to the people of the Hunter. That submission said in part:It—meaning digital transmission technology—is not a new service which requires fundamentally new rules, it is a replacement technology which poses some difficult transmission problems because of the need to replace transmission equipment and replace or convert domestic receivers for digital reception.That is a very important point to make. It is a point my government has already taken on board to a large degree and it is a point that we will continue to push.Back on 24 March this year, when the minister, Richard Alston, unveiled the new digital era, there was a special place at the digital TV table for regional TV broadcasters—broadcasters acting either independently or within an aggregate market, which services 35 per cent or approximately 6.4 million Australians with a high quality, high Australian, high local content TV product. This is about listening to the people of regional and rural Australia.Prime Television, NBN and Telecasters Australia will face without question much higher costs per viewer to install digital transmission equipment. For instance, Prime Television, through its current analog service in northern New South Wales, has seven transmitters and 39 translators. In my own electorate, we have one transmitter at Mount Sugarloaf and then nine translators that take that signal.When I listened to my colleague and friend the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) talking about the benefits, quite simply in the bush we just want every house to be able to receive TV. We are not interested in all the fancy stuff. All they have to do in Sydney is put up one transmitter, compared with the seven transmitters and 39 translators just to service the small area of northern New South Wales.That is why this government's policy stance has the backing of regional broadcasters. Regional broadcasters, amongst other things, will have to meet a requirement to commence DTTB services by 1 January 2004, three years after metropolitan stations. They have a free of charge spectrum, no allowance of new players in the market until the year 2008 and, further, the government will consider whether additional support to regional broadcasters, such as licence rebates, is required when planning is complete and the costs of transmission to digital are known. This is the very least that they need.FACTS estimates that in 1997 the cost of digital TV was $96 million for operations and $90 million for transmission to regional broadcasters in aggregated markets. As a comparison, metropolitan stations faced only a cost of $22 million for transmission. More recent figures are blunt: $245 million could be the bill for transmission to aggregated regional players collectively, including Prime Newcastle and NBN. At least 75 per cent of the total free to air TV industry investment in transmission facilities will be made by regional aggregated market operators.Quite simply put, NBN, Prime and Telecasters Australia, the regional TV players from Newcastle to the Tweed border, must be given special consideration by the government towards helping them meet the financial burden. To put it another way, it is the equivalent of placing 15 years of expenditure into five financial years. It could, of course, come in the form of a licence fee rebate or tax relief on infrastructure inputs, in other words, sales tax relief—two clear-cut areas where regional telecasters pay substantial money to this Commonwealth government.Television licence fees for regional broadcasters paid to the Commonwealth during 1997 totalled $30 million. A more glaring statistic taken overall across the free to air television industry is that, collectively, 1997 licence fees as a proportion of revenue have reached eight per cent—the highest it has ever been, according to FACTS. A further point that illustrates that a helping hand for regional broadcasters is genuinely needed is that the revenue from advertising for regional telecasters runs at $511 million, equating to 21.5 per cent of all TV revenue generated in Australia.The mathematics are quite simple: 75 per cent of the costs of restructuring the industry for digital is funded by 21.5 per cent of the income revenue for regional telecasters. Needless to say, 35.4 per cent of the Australian population serviced by regional broadcasters were within the New South Wales market and in particular the Hunter, which is the most difficult terrain for adequate transmission in all of Australia because of its unique topography. As I said, my aim is not for all the whiz-bangs; my aim is for each house to receive television.Over an eight-year period, with the delivery of aggregation within regional television markets, FACTS has produced figures which outline that $147 million was provided in capital assistance. Whilst not a benchmark, the point needs to be reinforced—in support of my three Hunter and northern New South Wales coast based regional telecasters, to retain their market share influence—that this debate is beyond the whiz-bang technology; it is all about hardware.The capital expenditure involved is estimated to be $500 to $750 million in the first five years of the simulcast period including all commercial networks, regional affiliates and smaller regional independent operators. The government has taken this all on board, a matter both I and a number of my colleagues have pushed. This is not a debate about a free ride for the free to airs—it is nothing of the sort. As outlined to the minister in its submission and given carriage to me by Prime, NBN, Telecasters Australia, WIN and Southern Cross, `a digital television policy solution which fails to deliver a substantial equivalent standard of service in regional and metro Australia is no solution at all'. That is food for thought when we marry modern technology with modern financial and commercial reality. As I said, put simply, this is not about a free ride for regional telecasters or any such consideration. This is about delivering quality broadcast services for all Australians, not just those who choose to live in the city.I support this bill, as would all of my constituents in Paterson including those who do not currently receive television broadcasts now but hope to in the future.13:18:004588Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—We will call a division on this matter. We reject the amendment proposed by the member for Dobell (Mr Lee), the shadow spokesman for communications.I sum up on the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, who is currently overseas. I am acting on his behalf this week. When I introduced this legislation some time ago, I indicated in the second reading speech—and several speakers today have indicated this in their speeches—that we have a record of a very strong free to air terrestrial television broadcasting system in Australia. It started in the 1950s, going through to the introduction of colour television in 1975. We have certainly built a very good and strong free to air system in its publicly funded form—the ABC and the SBS—and also commercial broadcasters. It has a substantial level of Australian quality content.As we move forward in the new millennium we do stand on the threshold of new and exciting opportunities and the arrival of new technology. As the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) indicated in his speech—he is always very eloquent—this is a debate about a piece of legislation that is fundamental to the everyday lives of Australians. It is about television, where we get so much of our entertainment and so much of our information.The opportunities that are provided by digital broadcasting are now apparent. We are grappling—and this legislation provides the opportunity to deal with it in a constructive way—to deliver digital broadcasting to this nation, to maintain all the qualities that we have come to expect and have seen in the delivery of the free to air systems in this country. Digital television is a huge quantum leap. Viewers will have the option of viewing high definition pictures of extremely enhanced clarity to what they enjoy now and with CD quality surround sound. Many colleagues today have talked about the impact of that technology.I thank honourable members from both sides: the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave), the member for Dunkley (Mr Billson), the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), the member for North Sydney, the member for Paterson (Mr Baldwin), who has just spoken, who indicated his key concern about regional television and making sure that digitalisation is going to be available to all areas of Australia—and this legislation achieves that—and the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville), who was concerned about consumers, as we all are. The fundamental point about this legislation is that it is designed to provide a migration path to the utilisation of this new digital technology to make sure that consumers get the benefit of that new technology regardless of where they might live—and I think that is particularly important.In summing up, there are some amendments that the government will move but we will deal with the opposition's amendment first and then I will make a few brief remarks about the nature of our amendments. They are broadly technical in nature and there is no dispute about them, but I will deal with those after we have dealt with this matter.Given that the shadow minister and former minister for communications is here, it is only right and proper that I should deal with his amendment. Can I say to him, firstly, that we do not accept the amendment. The fundamental point that you are making, as I read your amendment, is that there is some desire on the part of the government—indeed, there is—to enable this legislation to become law at the soonest possible time.We did do a review. The Australian Broadcasting Authority did do a review last year, in July. There was wide public consultation about high definition television, about digital conversions. It recommended simulcasting, which is the very centrepiece of this legislation. This allows for existing analog technology, which is the delivery mechanism of the TV signals, to be simultaneously broadcast with the arrival of digital technology. By its very nature, it is done at the same time. That is what the authority recommended and that is what this legislation does. It sets time periods for that to be able to take place.We are quite concerned, because of the level of investment that is required to establish digital television, that the soonest possible resolution of the legal position by way of the legislation take place, and that is why we would want this matter to proceed at the soonest possible time. To meet the dates that are proposed in the legislation, obviously we would need to get those decisions through the parliament as soon as we can.You will recall that the ABA in its report recommended that the start date be 1 January 2000. In fact, this legislation proposes that for metro areas the start date be 2001 and in regional areas 2004, with some leeway to go a little further out if that is necessary. Of course, that will be subject, in the regional areas, to the completion by the ABA of implementation plans. Implementation plans are extremely important in this legislative package because, broadly speaking, the legislation establishes the legal framework, the policy objectives. It leaves in place the prospect of a flexible scheme. We have statutory reviews, which have been the feature of earlier broadcasting legislation, where the resulting regulations are disallowable within the parliament so there is ongoing opportunity for the community through its representatives to scrutinise this process.But it is absolutely essential, when we look at those implementation plans, look at how many repeaters and installations are required, that we take cognisance of the need in regional areas. We would obviously consider licence rebates but that comes after looking at the overall implementation plans. The concerns that are raised by the opposition on that score are met in the body of the legislation and by statements previously made by my colleague Senator Alston and certainly by me.Another point that is raised in your amendment is about the need for industry plans. Quite frankly, there is a role for Australian industry to participate in the digital provision of hardware and broadcasting equipment and so on, but that is not appropriate for this legislation. That is rightly a matter to be dealt with in broad industry policy.I understand the Senate will give the product of its deliberations on 22 June, and obviously we would take account of those. As we have seen the hearings that have been proceeding, we still believe that we must meet that 2001 date and, as I say, provide legal certainty in the bill to enable investments to proceed.In your final point you said you want more time for public debate. There has been an enormous amount of public debate about these issues. I think you use the word `disingenuous' in your amendment. I suspect that this second reading amendment is of itself and of its nature somewhat disingenuous. You do know, as a former minister, that we have had in this country endless discussions about how we are going to implement digitisation of television to benefit consumers, to make sure consumers are at the forefront of our considerations. Indeed, this legislation does that.There are obviously other issues that members have raised and I will not be able to do justice to them, other than to make one particular point: as simulcasting takes place and you are sitting there with an analog TV set, you will of course be able to have a down converter on your set for a couple of hundred dollars and convert to digital reception. Then there will be enhancements available and multi-viewing will become available. That is allowable under the arrangements.On balance, the government believes that this is an eminently sensible way to proceed to protect consumers, to give a clear and identifiable migration path for Australia to engage new technologies, to enhance for the viewing audience the clarity of the picture and to extend the sound capacity—and do that in a way in which the existing providers of free to air television, which have done so well for us over so many years, are able to be accommodated and become part of this new exciting industry.Of course, we are dealing with a finite resource. We are dealing with spectrum. This is a finite resource that belongs to the people, and we have a responsibility in public policy terms to use it sensibly, to use it in a way that can enhance the community's enjoyment of that spectrum. And television being the pre-eminent way so many of us get our entertainment and our information, we believe that the public policy objectives that we have set in this legislation, the legal framework that we have put in place, is the sensible way to go.I suspect that, had you been in government, the package that you would be presenting would be very similar to what is being provided here. This is an enormously interesting and intricate technology. It has public policy clashes, and we have seen plenty of evidence of that. There are competing commercial interests, all of which have to be considered. But in the end, we must make public policy decisions for the needs of all Australians wherever they live, and do it in a fair and reasonable way. We believe that this legislative package does that. Mr Speaker, I indicate again that the government does not accept the member for Dobell's second reading amendment.13:29:004591Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise briefly just to advise the minister that we will not force the House to a division on the second reading amendment. We will just rely on the voices, but our view is stated quite clearly in the second reading amendment.13:29:004591Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I thank the member for Dobell (Mr Lee). It is very charitable. I know that a lot of people who are having their lunch will be very grateful that he has taken consideration of their needs.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4591Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:30:004591Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (after line 21), after subsection (3), insert:(3A) In making a determination under subsection (3), the ABA is to have regard to: (a) the possible future demand for the use of that part of the radiofrequency spectrum for the provision of commercial television broadcasting services; and (b) such other matters as the ABA considers relevant.(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 16 and 17), omit "(other than a requirement covered by paragraph 5(2)(a) or (b) of that Schedule);", substitute:other than either of the following requirements: (i) a requirement covered by paragraph 5(2)(a) or (b) of that Schedule; (ii) a requirement of Part B of the scheme to commence digital transmission;(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 18 to 22), omit paragraph (l), substitute: (l) the licensee will comply with so much of an implementation plan: (i) given by the licensee to the ABA in accordance with the commercial television conversion scheme in force under clause 5 of Schedule 4; and (ii) approved by the ABA; as does not relate to either of the following requirements: (iii) a requirement covered by paragraph 5(2)(a) or (b) of that Schedule; (iv) a requirement of Part B of the commercial television conversion scheme to commence digital transmission;(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (line 23), before "the licensee", insert "if there is a simulcast period for the licence area of the licence—".(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (line 25), omit "concerned".(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 30 and 31), omit "analog mode in that area", substitute "both analog mode and digital mode in that area".(7) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 24), at the end of subclause (3), add:(4) Subclause 5(7) of Schedule 4 applies to paragraph (1)(m) of this clause in a corresponding way to the way in which it applies to paragraph 5(2)(c) of Schedule 4 and subclause 5(6) of Schedule 4.(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (after line 4), after the definition of ACA , insert: broadcasting transmission tower means: (a) a tower; or (b) a pole; or (c) a mast; or (d) a similar structure; used to supply a broadcasting service by means of radiocommunications using the broadcasting services bands.(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (after line 7), after the definition of national television conversion scheme , insert: radiocommunication has the same meaning as in the Radiocommunications Act 1992 .(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (after line 11), after the definition of regional licence area , insert: remote coverage area means an area that corresponds to a remote licence area.remote licence area has the meaning given by clause 4A.(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 12 to 17), omit the definition of simulcast period , substitute: simulcast period : (a) in relation to a commercial television broadcasting service where the licence area concerned is not a remote licence area—has the meaning given by paragraph 5(2)(c) of this Schedule; and (b) in relation to a commercial television broadcasting service where the licence area concerned is a remote licence area—has the meaning given by subclause 5(6) of this Schedule; and (c) in relation to a national television broadcasting service where the coverage area concerned is not a remote coverage area—has the meaning given by paragraph 17(2)(c) of this Schedule; and (d) in relation to a national television broadcasting service where the coverage area concerned is a remote coverage area—has the meaning given by subclause 17(6) of this Schedule.(12) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (after line 27), after clause 4, insert:4A Remote licence area(1) The ABA may, by writing, determine that a specified licence area is a remote licence area for the purposes of this Schedule.(2) A determination under this clause has effect accordingly.(3) A determination under this clause is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(13) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (after line 6), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) The commercial television conversion scheme is to be divided into the following Parts: (a) Part A, which is to deal with licence areas that are not remote licence areas; (b) Part B, which is to deal with remote licence areas.(14) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 8), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(15) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (lines 15 to 20), omit paragraph (f).(16) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 22), omit "regional".(17) Schedule 1, item 12, page 11 (after line 31), at the end of subclause (2), add: (n) the objective that, if the implementation of the scheme affects particular broadcasting transmission towers, the ABA is to consult the owners and operators of those towers.(18) Schedule 1, item 12, page 12 (after line 5), at the end of clause 5, add:(4) Subclause (2) does not prevent Part A of the commercial television conversion scheme from allowing the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence for a licence area to transmit, on a test basis, the commercial television broadcasting service concerned in digital mode in that area before the start of the simulcast period for that area, so long as that transmission: (a) complies with such requirements as are ascertained in accordance with that Part of the scheme; and (b) occurs during a period ascertained in accordance with that Part of the scheme.(5) The objective mentioned in paragraph (2)(h) (which deals with co-location of transmitters) does not prevent Part A of the commercial television conversion scheme from making provision for the location of digital transmitters otherwise than as mentioned in that paragraph, where the ABA is satisfied that an alternative location is appropriate having regard to: (a) the remaining objectives set out in subclause (2); and (b) the costs that are likely to be incurred by the licensee concerned; and (c) such other matters (if any) as the ABA considers relevant.Remote licence areas—simulcast period(6) Part B of the commercial television conversion scheme may make provision for a transitional period for a specified remote licence area, that is to be known as the simulcast period , throughout which the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence for that area is required to transmit simultaneously the commercial television broadcasting service concerned in both analog mode and digital mode in that area. Simulcasting(7) In determining, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) and subclause (6), whether the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence transmits simultaneously the commercial television broadcasting service concerned in both analog mode and digital mode: (a) if a relevant determination is in force under subclause (8)—ignore any advertising or sponsorship matter covered by the determination, so long as the licensee complies with such conditions (if any) as are specified in the determination; and (b) if a relevant determination is in force under subclause (9)—ignore any television programs covered by the determination, so long as the licensee complies with such conditions (if any) as are specified in the determination.(8) The ABA may, by writing, determine that paragraph (7)(a) applies to specified advertising or sponsorship matter transmitted by a specified commercial television broadcasting licensee during a specified period. The specified advertising or sponsorship matter may consist of all advertising or sponsorship matter transmitted by the licensee concerned. The specified period may consist of the simulcast period for the licence area concerned. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(9) The ABA may, by writing, determine that paragraph (7)(b) applies to specified television programs transmitted by a specified commercial television broadcasting licensee during a specified period. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(10) The ABA must not make a determination under subclause (8) or (9) unless the ABA is satisfied that, if it were assumed that the determination were made, the version of the commercial television broadcasting service transmitted in digital mode will be substantially the same as the version of the service transmitted in analog mode.(11) A determination under subclause (8) or (9) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(12) A reference in this clause to advertising or sponsorship matter is a reference to advertising or sponsorship matter (whether or not of a commercial kind).(19) Schedule 1, item 12, page 12 (lines 16 to 28), omit subclause (2), substitute:Return of spectrum if digital transmission does not begin(2) Part A of the commercial television conversion scheme must make provision for requiring the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence to surrender one or more transmitter licences authorising digital transmission if: (a) the holder does not commence digital transmission as mentioned in paragraph 5(2)(a) or (b) of this Schedule; and (b) the holder does not satisfy the ABA that there are exceptional circumstances.Return of spectrum if digital transmission does not continue throughout the simulcast period(2A) Part A of the commercial television conversion scheme must make provision for requiring the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence to surrender one or more transmitter licences authorising digital transmission if: (a) the holder commences digital transmission as mentioned in paragraph 5(2)(a) or (b) of this Schedule; and (b) the holder ceases digital transmission during the simulcast period for the licence area concerned; and (c) under the scheme, the ABA gives the holder a written direction to: (i) resume digital transmission in that area within the period specified in the direction (being a period that is not longer than one month); and (ii) continue digital transmission throughout the simulcast period for that area; and (d) the holder does not comply with a direction referred to in paragraph (c); and (e) the holder does not satisfy the ABA that there are exceptional circumstances.(20) Schedule 1, item 12, page 13 (line 2), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(21) Schedule 1, item 12, page 13 (line 7), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(22) Schedule 1, item 12, page 13 (line 12), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(23) Schedule 1, item 12, page 13 (lines 19 to 27), omit subclause (6), substitute:Return of spectrum if HDTV standards contravened(6) Part A of the commercial television conversion scheme must make provision for requiring the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence for a licence area to surrender the transmitter licence or licences that authorised the transmission of the commercial television broadcasting service concerned in digital mode in that area if: (a) the holder contravenes a standard under subclause 34(1) (which deals with HDTV); and (b) under the scheme, the ABA gives the holder a written direction to comply with that standard within the period specified in the direction (being a period that is not longer than one month); and (c) the holder does not comply with a direction referred to in paragraph (b); and (d) the holder does not satisfy the ABA that there are exceptional circumstances.(24) Schedule 1, item 12, page 13 (lines 32 and 33), omit "bandwidth covered by the replacement licence must be less than the amount of bandwidth", substitute "transmission capacity covered by the replacement licence must be less than the amount of transmission capacity".(25) Schedule 1, item 12, page 14 (line 3), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(26) Schedule 1, item 12, page 14 (after line 10), at the end of clause 7, add:Remote licence areas(9) Part B of the commercial television conversion scheme may make provision for requiring the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence to surrender one or more transmitter licences authorising analog transmission or authorising digital transmission if the holder does not comply with a specified requirement of that Part of the scheme.(10) Part B of the commercial television conversion scheme may make provision for requiring the ACA to vary the conditions of a transmitter licence that authorised analog transmission of a commercial television broadcasting service in a remote licence area so as to ensure that the licence authorises digital transmission of that service in that area.(27) Schedule 1, item 12, page 15 (after line 10), after clause 12, insert:12A ABA to have regard to special circumstances that apply in remote licence areas (1) In formulating or varying Part B of the commercial television conversion scheme, the ABA must have regard to the special circumstances that apply to the transmission of commercial television broadcasting services in remote licence areas. (2) Subclause (1) does not limit the matters to which the ABA may have regard.(28) Schedule 1, item 12, page 16 (line 12), at the end of paragraph (d), add: ; and (e) consultation with owners and operators of broadcasting transmission towers.(29) Schedule 1, item 12, page 16 (after line 22), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The national television conversion scheme is to be divided into the following Parts: (a) Part A, which is to deal with coverage areas that are not remote coverage areas; (b) Part B, which is to deal with remote coverage areas.(30) Schedule 1, item 12, page 16 (line 24), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(31) Schedule 1, item 12, page 17 (lines 12 to 15), omit subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), substitute: (ii) to begin on the date mentioned in whichever of paragraphs (a) and (b) is applicable; and (iii) to end at the end of the simulcast period (within the meaning of paragraph 5(2)(c) of this Schedule) for the licence area that corresponds to that coverage area;(32) Schedule 1, item 12, page 17 (line 19), after "that", insert "coverage".(33) Schedule 1, item 12, page 17 (lines 29 to 34), omit paragraph (f).(34) Schedule 1, item 12, page 17 (line 36), omit "regional".(35) Schedule 1, item 12, page 19 (after line 4), at the end of subclause (2), add: (n) the objective that, if the implementation of the scheme affects particular broadcasting transmission towers, the ABA is to consult the owners and operators of those towers.(36) Schedule 1, item 12, page 19 (lines 15 to 24), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute: (4) Subclause (2) does not prevent Part A of the national television conversion scheme from allowing a national broadcaster to transmit, on a test basis, the national television broadcasting service concerned in digital mode in a coverage area before the start of the simulcast period for that area, so long as that transmission: (a) complies with such requirements as are ascertained in accordance with that Part of the scheme; and (b) occurs during a period ascertained in accordance with that Part of the scheme. (5) The objective mentioned in paragraph (2)(h) (which deals with co-location of transmitters) does not prevent Part A of the national television conversion scheme from making provision for the location of digital transmitters otherwise than as mentioned in that paragraph, where the ABA is satisfied that an alternative location is appropriate having regard to: (a) the remaining objectives set out in subclause (2); and (b) the costs that are likely to be incurred by the national broadcaster concerned; and (c) such other matters (if any) as the ABA considers relevant.Remote coverage areas—simulcast period (6) Part B of the national television conversion scheme may make provision for a transitional period for a specified remote coverage area, that is to be known as the simulcast period , throughout which a national broadcaster is required to transmit simultaneously the national television broadcasting service concerned in both analog mode and digital mode in that area.Simulcasting (7) In determining, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) and subclause (6), whether a national broadcaster transmits simultaneously the national television broadcasting service concerned in both analog mode and digital mode: (a) in the case of the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation where a relevant determination is in force under subclause (8)—ignore any advertising or sponsorship matter covered by the determination, so long as the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation complies with such conditions (if any) as are specified in the determination; and (b) if a relevant determination is in force under subclause (9)—ignore any television programs covered by the determination, so long as the national broadcaster complies with such conditions (if any) as are specified in the determination. (8) The ABA may, by writing, determine that paragraph (7)(a) applies to specified advertising or sponsorship matter transmitted by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation during a specified period. The specified advertising or sponsorship matter may consist of all advertising or sponsorship matter transmitted by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation. The specified period may consist of the simulcast period for the coverage area concerned. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (9) The ABA may, by writing, determine that paragraph (7)(b) applies to specified television programs transmitted by a specified national broadcaster during a specified period. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (10) The ABA must not make a determination under subclause (8) or (9) unless the ABA is satisfied that, if it were assumed that the determination were made, the version of the national television broadcasting service transmitted in digital mode will be substantially the same as the version of the service transmitted in analog mode. (11) A determination under subclause (8) or (9) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (12) A reference in this clause to advertising or sponsorship matter is a reference to advertising or sponsorship matter (whether or not of a commercial kind).(37) Schedule 1, item 12, page 20 (line 10), before "whether", insert "in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—".(38) Schedule 1, item 12, page 20 (line 19), after "areas", insert "(other than remote coverage areas)".(39) Schedule 1, item 12, page 20 (line 20), after "areas", insert "(other than remote coverage areas)".(40) Schedule 1, item 12, page 20 (line 22), before "the", insert "in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—".(41) Schedule 1, item 12, page 20 (after line 22), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a remote coverage area—the special circumstances that apply to the transmission of national television broadcasting services in that area;(42) Schedule 1, item 12, page 21 (lines 18 to 30), omit subclause (2), substitute:Return of spectrum if digital transmission does not begin (2) Part A of the national television conversion scheme must make provision for requiring a national broadcaster to surrender one or more transmitter licences authorising digital transmission if: (a) the national broadcaster does not commence digital transmission as mentioned in paragraph 17(2)(a) or (b) of this Schedule; and (b) the national broadcaster does not satisfy the ABA that there are exceptional circumstances.Return of spectrum if digital transmission does not continue throughout the simulcast period (2A) Part A of the national television conversion scheme must make provision for requiring a national broadcaster to surrender one or more transmitter licences authorising digital transmission if: (a) the national broadcaster commences digital transmission as mentioned in paragraph 17(2)(a) or (b) of this Schedule; and (b) the national broadcaster ceases digital transmission during the simulcast period for the coverage area concerned; and (c) under the scheme, the ABA gives the national broadcaster a written direction to: (i) resume digital transmission in that area within the period specified in the direction (being a period that is not longer than one month); and (ii) continue digital transmission throughout the simulcast period for that area; and (d) the national broadcaster does not comply with a direction referred to in paragraph (c); and (e) the national broadcaster does not satisfy the ABA that there are exceptional circumstances.(43) Schedule 1, item 12, page 22 (line 2), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(44) Schedule 1, item 12, page 22 (line 6), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(45) Schedule 1, item 12, page 22 (line 10), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(46) Schedule 1, item 12, page 22 (lines 17 to 25), omit subclause (6), substitute:Return of spectrum if HDTV standards contravened (6) Part A of the national television conversion scheme must make provision for requiring a national broadcaster to surrender the transmitter licence or licences that authorised the transmission of the national television broadcasting service concerned in digital mode in the coverage area concerned if: (a) the national broadcaster contravenes a standard under subclause 34(1) (which deals with HDTV); and (b) under the scheme, the ABA gives the national broadcaster a written direction to comply with the standard within the period specified in the direction (being a period that is not longer than one month); and (c) the national broadcaster does not comply with a direction referred to in paragraph (b); and (d) the national broadcaster does not satisfy the ABA that there are exceptional circumstances.(47) Schedule 1, item 12, page 22 (lines 29 to 31), omit "bandwidth covered by the replacement licence must be less than the amount of bandwidth", substitute "transmission capacity covered by the replacement licence must be less than the amount of transmission capacity".(48) Schedule 1, item 12, page 23 (line 3), omit "The", substitute "Part A of the".(49) Schedule 1, item 12, page 23 (after line 9), at the end of clause 21, add:Remote coverage areas (9) Part B of the national television conversion scheme may make provision for requiring a national broadcaster to surrender one or more transmitter licences authorising analog transmission or authorising digital transmission if the national broadcaster does not comply with a specified requirement of that Part of the scheme. (10) Part B of the national television conversion scheme may make provision for requiring the ACA to vary the conditions of a transmitter licence that authorised analog transmission of a national television broadcasting service in a remote coverage area so as to ensure that the licence authorises digital transmission of that service in that area.(50) Schedule 1, item 12, page 24 (after line 2), after clause 25, insert:25A ABA to have regard to special circumstances that apply in remote coverage areas (1) In formulating or varying Part B of the national television conversion scheme, the ABA must have regard to the special circumstances that apply to the transmission of national television broadcasting services in remote coverage areas. (2) Subclause (1) does not limit the matters to which the ABA may have regard.(51) Schedule 1, item 12, page 25 (line 8), at the end of paragraph (d), add: ; and (e) consultation with owners and operators of broadcasting transmission towers.(52) Schedule 1, item 12, page 25 (lines 13 and 14), omit "A national broadcaster must not broadcast a television program in digital mode during the simulcast period for a coverage", substitute "If there is a simulcast period for a coverage area, a national broadcaster must not broadcast a television program in digital mode in that area during the simulcast period for that".(53) Schedule 1, item 12, page 25 (line 20), omit "analog mode in that area", substitute "both analog mode and digital mode in that area".(54) Schedule 1, item 12, page 25 (after line 22), at the end of clause 32, add: (2) Subclause 17(7) applies to this clause in a corresponding way to the way in which it applies to paragraph 17(2)(c) of this Schedule and subclause 17(6) of this Schedule.(55) Schedule 1, item 12, page 26 (after line 6), at the end of clause 33, add: (2) Subclause (1) does not prevent a national broadcaster from doing anything that the broadcaster is authorised to do under paragraph 32(1)(c) of this Schedule.(56) Schedule 1, item 12, page 26 (lines 15 and 16), omit "a specified High Definition Television (HDTV) format", substitute "one or more specified High Definition Television (HDTV) formats".(57) Schedule 1, item 12, page 26 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Subclause (1) does not apply in relation to the transmission of: (a) a commercial television broadcasting service in a remote licence area; or (b) a national television broadcasting service in a remote coverage area. (1B) Subclause (1) does not apply in relation to the transmission of a commercial television broadcasting service in a licence area unless: (a) that service is transmitted in digital mode in that area; and (b) that service is not transmitted using a transmitter operated under the authority of a transmitter licence issued as mentioned in subclause 7(7). (1C) Subclause (1) does not apply in relation to the transmission of a national television broadcasting service in a coverage area unless: (a) that service is transmitted in digital mode in that area; and (b) that service is not transmitted using a transmitter operated under the authority of a transmitter licence issued as mentioned in subclause 21(7).HDTV standards—remote areas(1D) The regulations may determine standards that require: (a) holders of commercial television broadcasting licences; and (b) national broadcasters;to meet specified goals or targets in relation to the extent to which television programs, or specified kinds of television programs, are transmitted in accordance with one or more specified High Definition Television (HDTV) formats relating to the transmission of television programs in digital mode. (1E) Subclause (1D) does not apply in relation to the transmission of a commercial television broadcasting service in a licence area unless: (a) that area is a remote licence area; and (b) that service is transmitted in digital mode in that area; and (c) that service is not transmitted using a transmitter operated under the authority of a transmitter licence issued as mentioned in subclause 7(7).(1F) Subclause (1D) does not apply in relation to the transmission of a national television broadcasting service in a coverage area unless: (a) that area is a remote coverage area; and (b) that service is transmitted in digital mode in that area; and (c) that service is not transmitted using a transmitter operated under the authority of a transmitter licence issued as mentioned in subclause 21(7).Note 1: The following heading to subclause 34(1) is inserted "HDTV standards—non-remote areas ".Note 2: The following heading to subclause 34(2) is inserted "Non-HDTV standards ".Note 3: The following heading to subclause 34(3) is inserted "Compliance by national broadcasters ".(58) Schedule 1, item 12, page 26 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) Subclause (2) does not apply in relation to the transmission of a commercial television broadcasting service in a licence area unless that service is transmitted in digital mode in that area.(2B) Subclause (2) does not apply in relation to the transmission of a national television broadcasting service in a coverage area unless that service is transmitted in digital mode in that area.(59) Schedule 1, item 12, page 27 (after line 34), at the end of clause 35, add:(8) In this clause: program does not include advertising or sponsorship matter (whether or not of a commercial kind).(60) Schedule 1, item 12, page 28 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) Standards under subclause (1), to the extent that they deal with conditional access systems, must be directed towards ensuring the achievement of the policy objective that, as far as is practicable, those systems should be open to all providers of television broadcasting services transmitted in digital mode using the broadcasting services bands.(61) Schedule 1, item 12, page 28 (after line 13), at the end of clause 36, add:(4) In this clause: conditional access system means a conditional access system that: (a) relates to the provision of one or more television broadcasting services transmitted in digital mode using the broadcasting services bands; and (b) allows a provider of a television broadcasting service transmitted in digital mode using the broadcasting services bands to determine whether an end-user is able to receive a particular television broadcasting service transmitted in digital mode using the broadcasting services bands.(62) Schedule 1, item 12, page 28 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Standards under subclause (1), to the extent that they deal with conditional access systems, must be directed towards ensuring the achievement of the policy objective that, as far as is practicable, those systems should be open to all providers of datacasting services transmitted in digital mode.(63) Schedule 1, item 12, page 28 (after line 28), at the end of clause 37, add:(3) In this clause: conditional access system means a conditional access system that: (a) relates to the provision of one or more datacasting services transmitted in digital mode; and (b) allows a provider of a datacasting service transmitted in digital mode to determine whether an end-user is able to receive a particular datacasting service transmitted in digital mode.(64) Schedule 1, item 12, page 29 (line 26) to page 30 (line 6), omit the definition of broadcasting transmission tower .(65) Schedule 1, item 12, page 30 (lines 11 and 12), omit the definition of radiocommunication .(66) Schedule 1, item 12, page 31 (line 12), omit "transmission of a", substitute "transmission of the access seeker's".(67) Schedule 1, item 12, page 32 (lines 28 and 29), omit "if the tower is situated on the site.", substitute:if: (a) the tower is situated on the site; and (b) either: (i) the site is owned, occupied or controlled by the owner or operator of the tower; or (ii) the owner or operator of the tower has a right (either conditional or unconditional) to use the site.(68) Schedule 1, item 12, page 33 (line 4), omit "transmission of a", substitute "transmission of the access seeker's".(69) Schedule 1, item 12, page 35 (after line 20), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) Before making an instrument under subclause (1), the ACCC must consult: (a) commercial television broadcasting licensees; and (b) national broadcasters; and (c) owners and operators of broadcasting transmission towers.(70) Schedule 1, item 12, page 43 (lines 21 to 24), omit "and the content of any determinations made for the purposes of subparagraph 17(2)(c)(ii) of this Schedule (which also deals with the duration of the simulcast period)".(71) Schedule 1, item 12, page 44 (line 11), at the end of paragraph (b), add "or".(72) Schedule 1, item 12, page 44 (after line 11), after paragraph (b), insert: (c) subclause 42(5) or 43(5) (which deal with the issue of certificates);(73) Schedule 1, item 12, page 45 (line 2), omit "7(2) or (6)", substitute "7(2), (2A) or (6)".(74) Schedule 1, item 12, page 45 (line 17), omit "21(2) or (6)", substitute "21(2), (2A) or (6)".I present a supplementary memorandum to the bill. These amendments are detailed in the explanatory memorandum. They relate to a range of technical issues. They bring the planning objective for digital conversion schemes for metropolitan areas into line with the regional areas. They also require the schemes to be directed towards the objective that, as soon as practicable after the start of a simulcast period, the digital transmission of a television broadcasting service in both metropolitan and regional areas achieves the same level of coverage and potential reception quality as is achieved by the analog transmission of that service.Indeed, that point was made during the course of the debate this morning and I assure members that that is an objective of the legislation which I feel sure will be achieved because there is quite a deal of difference technically between an analog mobile phone system as against an analog television system and a digital television system. Some people were surmising that there may be similar difficulties but, in fact, there will not be.It will enable the digital conversion schemes to allow temporary test transmissions of digital broadcasting services before the commencement of the simulcast period and enable the ABA to formulate and implement a different digital conversion scheme for the transmission of broadcasting services to remote areas, taking into account the special circumstances which apply to the delivery of a television service to these areas.It provides that the simulcast requirements do not apply to advertising, transmission arrangements or individual programs where the ABA is satisfied that the digital version of the broadcasting service will be substantially the same as the analog version of the broadcasting service. It increases consultation provisions on the formulation and implementation of the television conversion schemes and the access regime under the bill. It exempts advertising and sponsorship announcements from the closed captioning obligations.We require digital television transmission standards and datacasting standards to be directed towards the objective of having open conditional access systems. These amendments and other minor technical government amendments have been drafted following industry consultation on the bill as introduced into the House. I take the opportunity to thank all those within the industry for their substantial submissions on this matter. Obviously, many have made submissions to the Senate. The minister has taken account of these matters and those matters are reflected in these amendments. I have taken the opportunity to explain in short form what they are and therefore proceed to commend the amendments to the House.13:33:004599Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—These amendments are quite wide ranging so I hope the minister does not mind a few short but wide-ranging questions. The first question I would like to ask the minister is whether he is the same member for Bass who bragged in 1991 that he amended the former Broadcast ing Services Act to require an inquiry into whether there was a need for a fourth commercial television network in Australia because he believed there was not enough competition in commercial television in Australia. If he is the same member for Bass who used to brag about that achievement, could he explain to us why he, as acting minister, and the government have not used this legislation as an opportunity to introduce more competition into commercial television broadcasting as appeared to be his view in 1991?13:34:004599Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—In 1991 we required at that stage to have an inquiry into what we should be asking for. If the inquiry recommended it, then obviously one would consider it. I was in opposition, not in government, and we did not have the inquiry in the terms that I would want it.13:35:004599Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Isn't it a fact that your government decided not to proceed with the inquiry that you bragged about putting into the Broadcasting Act in 1991 and it has been your government that has decided not to conduct a public inquiry into whether or not there should be more competition in the broadcasting area?GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—There is active competition there now.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—If the minister is conceding that point and he is not prepared to defend himself on that point could he—An honourable member interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Well, he is saying he is not prepared to defend. He certainly had an opportunity then to get up—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Order! I caution the member for Dobell that the bill before us is the communications bill and the question may have preceded the introduction of this bill.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am perfectly entitled to ask questions of the minister on the detail of the amendments and these amendments are so wide ranging that a question about the level of competition in commercial broadcasting is certainly something that is relevant to this bill. I will give the minister another chance in a minute if he wants to perhaps explain to us why his government has not proceeded to implement the clauses that he bragged about putting into the 1991 Broadcasting Act, that is, the clauses that required the government of the day to have an inquiry as to whether or not there should be a fourth commercial television network. Clearly this legislation prohibits any new entrants into commercial television until 2008. What has changed the government's mind or the mind of the Minister for Family Services, who is at the table?13:36:004600Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I see what you are trying to get at. I thought you were just trying to play politics for a moment—and cherish the thought! In 1991 we were dealing with the then existing arrangements of free to air television. We were not looking at the prospect of engaging digitisation. This is about how we bring digital television into Australia, given the high capital cost, protecting the interests of the consumer. How do we have a migration path to enable that to take place?I recall, for the benefit of members, that back in 1991 I was shadow minister. I had a lot of different shadow ministries but at that time it was communications and we were having a new broadcasting act. The issue and legitimate question then was—and you will recall there was a great deal of instability in the arrangements and ownership arrangements of the free to air broadcasting networks at that time—should we be looking at whether or not there needed to be a broadening of that base? There has been a consolidation over the last nearly 10 years but now we have to work out how we are going to move to engage digitisation. At that stage it was appropriate to ask the question and I do not recall whether or not the amendments became part of the act or not. I just do not recall.MG4LEEMr Lee—They are still part of the act.GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—But what we are concerned about here is providing the migration path. If we do not, as a nation, take the opportunity to engage digitisation, you will have a substandard television system as against what is available in the rest of the world. That is the challenge. You know that is the challenge for us as nation. That is the reason why we are doing what we are doing here now, and you are only seeking to delay it by your second reading amendment. You know that it is essential as a nation that we engage this technology.If I do cast my mind back to 1991, it was a very different environment; it was a different technical argument. This is part of the issue in communications policy. The technology is sometimes running far ahead of our capacity to keep up with it in public policy terms. What we are trying to do here is give some certainty to the investment that is required. I think that is a reasonable and fair answer to the intent of your question.13:39:004600Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, this consideration affords me the opportunity to raise a consumer issue associated with the way in which people around Australia can receive television broadcasts now. That consumer issue, of course, is the fact that on 15 June, which is only a short couple of weeks away, the World Cup Soccer will be commencing. The World Cup Soccer rights have been obtained by SBS. Of course, as all members in this place would know, SBS has regrettably still a reasonably limited broadcasting opportunity, particularly in regional Australia.Given that the World Cup is a one in every four years event and it brings to a particular nation—in this case, it is to France—the best soccer nations who have gone through a series of games to find who the finalists will be—regrettably, with the absence of Australia, but nevertheless the best soccer nations of the world will be there—and given that soccer is, after all, the world's game, being played in more countries than any other sport, one would have thought that the opportunity could have been taken by other broadcasting networks to afford people, particularly in regional Australia, the opportunity to view the World Cup.As I understand it, SBS offered that opportunity to commercial broadcasters free of charge. They offered to the other networks the right to on-broadcast the World Cup games free of charge. One network which refused it was the WIN Television network. That, of course, greatly concerns me because WIN has its home in Wollongong, in my electorate. It now broadcasts almost entirely up and down the east coast of Australia, from Cape York Peninsula to the very bottom of Tasmania. I would have thought that the opportunity being offered by SBS, particularly in terms of it being on a no-cost basis, might have been embraced.I guess what I am relaying in this debate this afternoon is the fact that there are many people—I will be lucky because we get SBS in Wollongong and we will be able to watch the World Cup—in regional Australia who will not have that same luxury. As I say, it is a four-yearly event of the world's best nations playing soccer. When excuses about television commitments for other sporting events like tennis and so on are proffered by the commercial television stations, it disturbs me a touch that perhaps they are not looking at some of their clientele that might be quite desirous of wanting to follow the World Cup Soccer.This is a consumer issue. Not everybody follows sport, I understand that. I know it is a comment that a lot of people in Australia from time to time make. But if we are going to provide an opportunity—and, as I understand it, most of those games would be in the middle of the night anyway—one would think that those commercial stations could probably put to bed their home shopping hours or some of the other things that are broadcast in their 24 hour a day operation to give regional Australia an opportunity to watch what is, as I say, a once in every four years event.With the planning that has gone into the World Cup in France this year, with the stadiums that have been built in Paris and in other parts of France to accommodate the competition, one would have thought the world's game should have been offered to the majority of Australians. I just wonder whether the minister might have any powers of persuasion over those former colleagues of his in the television industry, given, of course, that I well remember the fuss that was made a couple of years ago by the minister in respect of cricket broadcasts coming from the West Indies.MG4LEEMr Lee—Didn't he say something in Launceston?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—I think my colleague the member for Dobell is dead right that there were some comments made by the member for Bass, the minister in respect of those issues. So, Minister, I would be most grateful if you might look at this matter because I do think it is worthy of great consideration.13:43:004601Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I think I should, out of a sense of nostalgia for matters sport, if nothing else, say that we obviously would be very keen for as many people in Australia to see the World Cup as possible, but these are matters obviously of a commercial nature. I do not believe the government has any direct capacity. There may be discussions taking place with the department and my colleague the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) and I just have not been advised about them. But, as I am well known for supporting matters sport, if there are avenues for me to assist in that regard I most certainly will.13:44:004601Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The next issue I would like to raise is this question that a number of speakers and the minister picked up in the second reading debate about the quality of the signal that viewers will receive when we move to digital television. I did seek an assurance during the second reading debate that anyone who currently receives analog television will receive a digital television signal presumably of equal quality.We all keep getting told that under digital television you will have a better signal. Excuse us for being a bit sceptical about that, given that past predictions by some technical experts have not been delivered to the public. I would seek from the minister a guarantee that anyone who currently receives an analog television signal will receive a digital signal. If that does not end up being the case, we want an assurance from the minister that the government will take responsibility for fixing that problem. Can we get that guarantee from the minister?13:45:004602Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—Just quickly, given the hour of the day, the conversion objective is to achieve the same level of convergence, and that is reflected in the act. The implementation issue is a matter of the ABA implementation plans. There is a marked difference between the mobile telephony phone systems moving from analog to digital and the television moving from analog to digital. There are qualitative differences, and it hinges on the implementation plans.As I am advised, the same level of concern need not be held about the issues that you raise. We are extremely confident, and we have made that a primary objective of the act in terms of the conversion arrangements.13:46:004602Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—They were fine words from the minister but they do not give us that guarantee. It is one thing to say that his advice is that this will not be a problem. I am merely a humble electrical engineer and my understanding of this is that there is no way the government can guarantee that people who currently receive the analog signal will be guaranteed to receive digital television.The question that then flows from that is: who is going to be responsible for the extra cost of putting in the extra translators to make sure that all of the people who are in the gallery today who now receive an analog television signal will still have access to a digital television signal? In the Sydney market in the conversion from analog to digital, for example, if Channel 9 has one digital broadcaster for the Sydney market, I am sure there will be many parts of the wider Sydney area that will not receive the digital Channel 9 signal. Who is going to be responsible for making sure that Channel 9 puts in the extra translators to make sure every person out there who now receives the analog signal will receive the digital signal? Or is the government going to leave that up to Channel 9—and Channel 10 and Channel 7: the commercial television channels—to decide who will receive a digital television signal?13:48:004602Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The centrepiece of the legislation for the conversion objective is to see that there is full coverage. The implementation plans which will flow after and which will be subject to regulation—they will be subject to disallowance, so there will be ongoing scrutiny from the parliament—will become the centrepiece as to what level of technical installations will be required and their location. In other words, we are putting in place a process that will be looking at where those installations will need to be to meet the conversion objective. Sensibly, that is the best one can do, and that is far more than what is normally done, obviously, to ensure that you get to the point where you get a universal conversion without any difficulty. Of course, the more robust signal that is delivered by digital technology gives that better quality, that greater clarity. The centrepiece is the objective of conversion—and then the implementation plans. But your point is well made and that is well known by the industry. It is in their interest as well to give that broad coverage.13:49:004602Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I suppose that is my concern. What is the conversion objective? Is it that there be a 100 per cent conversion?GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—To achieve the same level of coverage.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—If the minister says it is the same level of coverage, what we want to know is whether there is a legal obligation for the commercial broadcasters to lodge a plan which will deliver 100 per cent conversion. If that is the conversion objective, what will happen if the conversion plan does not deliver digital television to everyone who now receives an analog signal? Will there be a legal obligation on the commercial broadcasters to put in the extra equipment that will make sure that everyone who now receives analog TV will receive digital TV? Who is going to be legally responsible if there is not a 100 per cent conversion?13:50:004602Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The prospect of that is not in prospect. The conversion objective is to have the same level of coverage. As you know, we have universal coverage, and they are required under the implementation plans to meet that objective—and they will meet it. They have a market imperative to do so.13:50:004603Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I am sure the minister at the table and the officials know that we do not have universal coverage in Australia at the moment. Just simple swaps from WIN4 on the very high frequency signal to WIN on ultra high frequency has seen some people fall off the table. We have not been able to have 100 per cent conversion from VHF to UHF. If the minister is telling us that there is going to be a miracle solution to make sure that 100 per cent of people who now get analog will get digital, I would like to know about it because I do not think it can be delivered technically. What I then want to know is who is going to spend the money—or will anyone be required to spend the money?—to make sure that the people who would otherwise fall off the table, who will lose access to their television, are going to be looked after? Are we going to require the commercial broadcasters to spend the extra money to make sure there is a 100 per cent conversion or are we going to leave open the possibility that a percentage of Australians will lose access to their television?13:51:004603Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—All I can say to you—and I think you are trying to split hairs here—is that the conversion is required to meet the same level of coverage as currently exists, which is very extensive, and that they have a commercial imperative to do so. They need to go through the process of implementation plans, and we will rely on the content of the act to enable us to ensure that we meet that objective. If you want to have a technical brief on what you are trying to get at here, you perhaps should seek that, if you have not done so already. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would urge the shadow minister to allow us to deal with the second act here before 2 o'clock.13:52:004603Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—This is the last occasion I will raise it but the minister's last answer seemed to be completely at odds with his earlier answer. Earlier he said there would be a 100 per cent requirement for conversion, and that was on the advice of the departmental officials. His last answer was that it would be similar to the current obligation. The current obligation on commercial broadcasters does not require them to make sure that analog TV is delivered to everyone in their service area. It is up to each of the commercial broadcasters to decide how much money they will spend on delivering their signal to all those homes out there.The point I am trying to make is: can you today give us a guarantee that everyone who now gets analog TV will get digital TV and how are you going to implement that? Are you going to require the taxpayer or the broadcasters to put in the extra transmitters, towers and poles to make sure that 100 per cent of people who now get analog TV will get digital TV?Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4603Motion (by Mr Warwick Smith)—by leave—proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.13:54:004603Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I am still waiting for an answer to my last question. This is a very important bill which we are now dealing with in the third reading stage. It is a bill that deals with how many Australians will get access to digital television. My question to the minister was: can he guarantee that everyone who now gets analog TV will get digital TV? If that requires someone to spend money, who is going to spend the money, the commercial broadcaster or the government, to make sure that everyone out there does get access to their digital TV?Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills4603r5144603Consideration resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4604Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Warwick Smith) read a third time.Bills4604r5394604Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.13:56:004604Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—At the outset I indicate to the government that, whilst we have some reservations about increasing the departure tax on passengers leaving Australia, the opposition will not be opposing this particular measure as it has been caught up in the budget process. Also, the way in which this has been introduced—increasing the so-called passenger movement charge, which is a departure tax, by $3 up to $30—is a clear example of this government's breaking yet another promise to the Australian people, that is, in the first term of a Howard government there would be no increases in taxes and no introduction of new taxes. Clearly, this is a promise that has been broken. It has now slumped into the category of a non-core promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). Once again, it is going to be the outbound tourists leaving Australia, both Australians travelling overseas for holidays and those tourists that have come from overseas and then are departing to go home, that will be slugged the extra $3.I read with interest that it is proposed that this measure commence on 1 January 1999, so it is some six or so months away, although interestingly, according to the explanatory memorandum, it was actually to start on 1 January 1998. That has been conveniently crossed out and somebody has written in `1999'. Whether that was a printer's error or whether the government was again going back on one of its long-cherished beliefs when it comes to legislation and its effects on the Australian people—that is, introducing an element of retrospectivity—we will not know, because this bill, when it is finally passed, will not come into effect until 1 January 1999.It has been sold also as a measure to reap some benefit for Australia, for the government, in the year 2000 as a result of the Olympic Games. The fact is that Australia stands to benefit from an enormous influx of people, certainly commencing next year in 1999 and in the year 2000, as people come to this nation, both as athletes and also as visitors, to participate in what is clearly every four years one of the premier sporting activities in the world. The Olympics will provide an opportunity for people to see first-hand the world's athletes; they will see at first-hand in Sydney facilities which have been purpose built and which I think will stand the test of time as being amongst the best, if not the best, ever constructed for that purpose. Certainly that was the view of Juan Antonio Samaranch when he was here a few months ago to look at progress on the site.As I have indicated, the departure tax increase that we are discussing today will be implemented by way of a bill. There had been some thought that it would be implemented simply by regulation, but that has proven not to be the case.There is a severe budgetary implication for government with the introduction of this tax increase, not in a negative sense but certainly in a positive sense. Based on the budget measures outlined in Budget Paper No. 2 1998-99 and looking into the next four years, you can see that the take by the government from increasing the departure tax alone on visitors leaving this country by air is going to reap at best estimates—and I think these are conservative—$78 million.I will continue my remarks on this issue a little later today because I want to expose some of the hypocrisy of the government in respect of implementing these sorts of measures—breaking, Prime Minister, yet again, that promise.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Questions Without Notice460546054605Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—Acting on behalf of my leader, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having finally described the member for Oxley's statements as verging on the deranged, irresponsible, and fanning racist sentiment, why won't the Prime Minister now show some leadership and ensure that One Nation is placed last on all the coalition how-to-vote tickets? Why does he continue to allow his party to favour One Nation in such a way that could enable Pauline Hanson to control the balance of power in Queensland and the Australian Senate?4605Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In reply to the Acting Leader of the Opposition, he must be the only Acting Leader of the Opposition whose party won't list any of his speeches on its web site page, but I will come to that in a minute. I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was watching the Lateline program last night. If he had been watching the Lateline program last night he would have seen the exposure of the complete hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue. In an interview the state secretary of the ALP in Queensland, Mike Kaiser, made this comment in relation to the seat of Ashgrove, where the Labor Party has put the Australia First party, whose views on many matters are similar to those of One Nation.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Why don't you put an end to it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In fact, the founder of Australia First accused One Nation of stealing its policies from Australia First. What Kaiser said was as follows:What we've done in the seat of Ashgrove is simply put a party ahead of the Nationals and Liberals which can't win seats in Queensland. The reality is no poll has suggested that Australia First can win a seat.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Oh, show a bit of leadership, you wimp!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman!ZD4Mr HOWARD—So what in reality the Labor Party is saying is that it is not a ques tion of what a party believes in, it is not a question of what its platform is; it is a question of political tactics, it is a question of political advantage. What you are doing is pretending that you have the high moral ground—5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—You are shacked up with her. That is what you are.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Kingsford-Smith will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—when in reality it is simply a matter of political tactics. Your own leader this morning had this to say.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! The member for O'Connor! The member for Banks!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Not surprisingly, he said that he appeals to everybody in Australia to give their first preference to the Labor Party, and, if they don't give it to the Labor Party, to give the Labor party their second preference.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—You are shacked up with her.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In other words, he is prepared to take the preferences of people who support a party he criticised, yet he has the nerve to pour moral scorn on the government.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—You are in bed with her!ZD4Mr HOWARD—By all means let the Leader of the Opposition appeal for support around Australia but on the issue of preferences, after what Mr Kaiser has said, please spare us the sanctimonious sermons.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, don't you talk, you unctuous—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—On a point of order, during the Prime Minister's answer the member for Kingsford-Smith interjected to the Prime Minister, `You're shacked up with her.' Mr Speaker, I think that is a deeply offensive thing to say about a Prime Minister or any member of this House—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will remain silent! The member for Prospect!4G4DOWNERMr Downer—and I would ask you to instruct the member for Kingsford-Smith to withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith: did he make the statement alleged?5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—I certainly did, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Will you withdraw that statement?5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—If you require it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask you to withdraw that statement.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Politically, yes, I withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw the remark as he knows how.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—At your instruction, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask you to withdraw the remark unconditionally.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—It is so withdrawn.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will remain silent.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect I warn.46064606Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—Can the Treasurer inform the House of the March quarter national accounts. Furthermore, are the figures consistent with budget forecasts?4606Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Today's national accounts confirm that the Australian economy is growing strongly. In the March quarter the national accounts recorded 1.3 per cent growth, and over the course of the year 4.9 per cent growth in the Australian economy. A 4.9 per cent growth in the Australian economy puts Australia probably at the highest of the OECD, with possible exceptions in Finland and Mexico, but certainly higher than all of the G-7 economies.Although the national accounts are always subject to revision, and care has to be taken in interpreting any particular quarter, one can see that this is totally consistent with the budget forecasts of growth in 1997-98 of 3¾ per cent—indeed, at the moment considerably exceeding those forecasts. On the back of strong growth in this quarter those forecasts will be realised.Although today's national accounts showed that domestic demand was flat, other indicators, such as employment growth, job vacancies, building approvals, credit growth, import growth and continued strength in trading performance and business surveys all support strong domestic demand continuing. Although today's accounts also show a build-up in private stocks allowing for a trend decline in the stock to sales ratio, there was a low stock to sales ratio. Indeed, it appears that the build-up in public marketing authority stocks, particularly by the Australian Wheat Board, indicates that the Wheat Board was holding commodities such as wheat, barley and sugar—commodities which have now been sold and which will become exports in the next quarter and contribute to export growth in the final quarter of 1997-98.More recent building approvals numbers showing growth of 8.3 per cent in April and 19.5 per cent over the year indicate good investment in the economy. Business investment will be underpinned by continuing growth in corporate profits, which grew 3.5 per cent in March to be 7.5 per cent higher than a year earlier. These figures are consistent with an economy which is showing low inflation, enjoying the lowest interest rates in generations and enjoying a government which has put the budget back in the black and is now reducing Commonwealth debt, and which has had remarkably strong growth up until March of this year, at 4.9 per cent.YK6WILTONMr Wilton—What about the current account?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I think most Australians will welcome strong growth in the Australian economy. Even though we hear interjections from some of the backbench of the Labor Party, complaining about high growth in the Australian economy, I think the frontbench of the Australian Labor Party would be pleased to see growth of 4.9 per cent. I think even the frontbench of the Labor Party would say that the important decisions of getting Australia's budget back in the black, of locking in low inflation and of giving Australia low interest rates were important markers to get to this position.Whilst an external downturn in Asia will affect the Australian economy and mark down growth in 1998-99 from the levels that it has been in 1997-98, we can say without qualification that it was the decisions of the government to turn around the haemorrhaging deficit and debt strategy of Labor, to reduce inflation and to bring down interest rates that strengthened the Australian economy at a time of external challenge. No-one would want to be running the Australian economy if it were still running a $10 billion deficit now in the face of an external challenge of the dimension that we now have. Now is not the time to turn our backs on good economic policy; now is the time to continue it, to continue to strengthen the Australian economy against external challenge and to bring the benefits of low inflation and low interest rates to small businesses and home buyers in this country.46074607Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and it follows the answer he has just given. Is it not the case that today's March quarter growth figures are one-off, unsustainable and give no hope whatsoever to Australia's jobless?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.VD4Mr GARETH EVANS—Is it not the case that the size of the increase is based almost wholly on the production of goods that no-one is buying? Don't the figures show that private consumption is flat, that the underlying business investment is flat, that the private dwelling investment is flat, that net exports are a major and continuing detraction to growth, and that the only contribution to growth is coming from stock building?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will draw your question to a conclusion.VD4Mr GARETH EVANS—This is the very last sentence. Is it not the case that the only contribution to growth is coming from stock building which, whatever gloss the Treasurer tries to put on it, is simply unsustainable?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The point is lost simply on the grounds that you allowed another speech in this place that was portrayed as a question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question was too long; I drew the attention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to that fact. The question is, however, in order and I ask the Treasurer to respond.4607Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As usual, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is completely wrong. How can a figure of 4.9 per cent, which is an accumulation of four quarters, be one-off? It is an accumulation of four quarters; you add up 12 months worth. It is not one-off, it is 12 months worth to get to 4.9 per cent. How can it be one-off? One-off over 12 months, is that what you are saying? This is a 4.9 per cent growth rate, 1.3 per cent for the quarter, and we get the Deputy Leader of the Opposition trying to make out that 4.9 per cent is a bad result. This is weird. This is absolutely weird.Yesterday, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went out and said that we had the largest current account deficit ever, until it was pointed out that we had had a larger one back in—when was it?—1995. He said it was the largest current account deficit in living memory. This morning, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, came in at his doorstop to defend the credibility of his deputy leader with these words—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was not about the current account deficit, the question was squarely about today's growth figures—what they signify for the future and whether they are sustainable.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader asked a very long question and, as a result, anything the Treasurer says in relation to that issue will be relevant.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I quote from the media report:Opposition Leader Kim Beazley today defended the credibility of his deputy Gareth Evans over his comments on yesterday's balance of payment figures.Mr Evans was forced into an embarrassing backdown after he described a $7.5 billion current account deficit for the first three months of 1998 as the worst in Australian history. . . Mr Beazley said people should not focus entirely on Mr Evans' comments . . . He may be his shadow Treasurer but, whatever you do, do not listen to him. It is Gareth—do not focus on his comments, just make him the Treasurer of the country. Here we have an incredible situation where a leader defends his deputy by saying, `Don't listen to what he says.' I do not think the people of Australia needed that advice; I think they had already come to that conclusion.46084608Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House how Australia's growth rate, revealed in the national accounts, compares to the growth rates of the OECD and ASEAN countries?4608Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Today's growth rate for the four quarters to March 1998 indicates that the Australian economy grew by 4.9 per cent. According to OECD data, a growth rate of that dimension—the growth rate of Australia in the last quarter—was higher—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is far too high a level of conversation around the House. Will members please keep quiet.CT4Mr COSTELLO—than that of Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. With the possible of exception of Finland and Mexico—both coming off recent downturns—the Australian economy is growing the fastest of the industrialised nations of the world, and I think that is good news. Even the Australian Labor Party would say now that getting good growth in the Australian economy, and the jobs growth and the increase in people's disposable income that that means, is a good thing. Even though they opposed the govern ment in producing its budget surplus and opposed our economic strategy, I think that they would now concede that they were wrong to do that and that we are now seeing some of the benefits.The growth rate in Australia is probably—with the exception of China and Chinese Taipei—the highest growth rate in the Asian region. We are in a region which is now predominantly in recession. In Korea, there was a contraction of 3.8 per cent through the year to March 1998. In Malaysia, there was a contraction of 1.8 per cent through the year to March 1998. In Hong Kong, the economy contracted by two per cent through the year to March 1998—the first negative growth in 13 years. In the Philippines, economic growth slowed to 1.7 per cent through the year to March 1998. And, as most people in Australia would know, Indonesia is currently in a severe contraction.One of the consequences of this is that Asia, which for 2½ decades has been an impetus to growth for Australia, is now having a contractionary effect on our economy. It means that it is more important than ever to get the domestic fundamentals right in Australia. The one thing that policy makers in Australia could always count on, regardless of what was happening in the domestic economy, was that Asia would be an engine of growth for Australia. Even when Labor had Australia in its worst recession in 60 years in 1990-91, they knew that Asia would be an engine for growth—it would be counteracting the recessionary forces in the domestic economy. We do not have that luxury today. Asia is now a contractionary force and we have to take countercyclical action in Australia to offset the downturn coming out of Asia.What measures do we have to have in Australia to make sure that we strengthen our domestic economy against this adverse external environment? A budget back in balance was the first thing that Australia needed, and it was what this government delivered on. The second thing was a low inflation rate, which we locked in by an agreement between the Reserve Bank of Australia and the government. We know the Labor Party opposed this. The Labor Party threatened to sue us over locking in low inflation by an agreement with the Reserve Bank, but how important was that now?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You are a man of straw. What is the point of suing you?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—When this government came to office, interest rates were 10½ per cent. Today, your standard variable mortgage will be as low as 6½ per cent—maybe lower. That is a benefit of four percentage points for the home buyer in Australia. That is great news for home buyers. That is great news for young people who are trying to buy homes and get a start in life—to give them those low interest rates.The fourth thing is to concentrate on reducing Labor's debt. The member for Cunningham interjects. Over the last five budgets of Labor Party government—and the member for Cunningham was the Speaker over that period—Labor ran up $80,000 million of debt. We cannot abolish Labor's debt overnight. We cannot just say that we will write off $80 billion that Labor bequeathed to us. But this government has a strategy to stabilise that government debt and to turn it. This will give young people opportunities that they would never have had. This is a pro-youth strategy to free young Australians from Labor's debt—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will draw his answer to a close.CT4Mr COSTELLO—to give them the opportunity to buy a house, to have low interest rates for small business, to give the economy a bit of a go under low inflation and to create opportunities. That is what the government is about. Those are the opportunities that we believe in.46094609Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall telling John Laws last week, `Now I can say to the battlers of Australia, you are not going to be worse off'? Is the Prime Minister aware that, at a recent funeral in New Zealand, the GST tax bill came to $438.44 on a funeral costing $3,600?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Government members will remain silent. The honourable member for Jagajaga is now really stretching the nature of questions.Opposition members interjecting—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition will remain silent. The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. I have a point of order which I will take.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, are you going to allow—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his place.DT4CREANMr Crean—Well, I am trying to ask whether the member—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his place. You are making so much noise I do not know whether the question is finished or not. The member for Hotham will resume his seat. He does not have the call.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley and the member for Hotham will resume their seats.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I am asking you—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Are you going to resume your seat? Will you resume your seat? The member for O'Connor, have you a—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on standing order 142.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Unfortunately, I will not take that.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the opposition will remain silent. The member for O'Connor can raise that point of order when the honourable member for Jagajaga has finished her question.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a further point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will take the point of order at the end of question time.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—This is a gross abuse of question time and the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The member for Jagajaga should not be quoting large tracts of documents in her question. I ask her to complete her question.DT4CREANMr Crean—How do you know what she is quoting?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have been listening, and I would have thought you might have been too.DT4CREANMr Crean—Listen a bit harder.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Jagajaga will repeat her question. We are now at the stage where I have no idea where your question is. Would you mind beginning again?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Repeat the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will remain silent.PG6Ms MACKLIN—There was a GST tax bill that included $99 for the casket, $168 for the funeral director's fees—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—This is an outrage!PG6Ms MACKLIN—$13 for the hearse, $25 for the chapel—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is now making allegations of fact, which are out of order.PG6Ms MACKLIN—Prime Minister, how can you hit Australian families with such an unfair tax at their time of grief?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the honourable member for Jagajaga cares to look at standing order 144—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent. The Deputy leader will resume his seat. If the member for Jagajaga looks at standing order 144, you will see those things that you are allowed to include within your question. You are stretching that by including a whole recitation of material which seems to me to go further than it need. You will complete your question and put it without the recitation, which seems to me to be going quite outside the provisions of 144.PG6Ms MACKLIN—Prime Minister, how can you hit Australian families with such an unfair tax at this time of grief?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for O'Connor wish to raise his point of order now?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The point of order is too late.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will answer the question.4610Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order. The member for Lindsay, the member for O'Connor and the member for Prospect!4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Unless you are immortal—it is a death tax.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks will remain silent. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am not aware of the circumstances to which the honourable member refers. But I take the opportunity to say that the first legislation that I introduced as federal Treasurer in 1978 was the abolition of death duties—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—fulfilling a promise that was made by the coalition during the 1977 election. The reference made by the member for Jagajaga reminded me of the fulfilment of that commitment.But can I also take the opportunity of saying to those who sit opposite, and through them to the Australian people, that my government remains very strongly committed to taxation reform. My government remains very strongly committed to delivering a fairer taxation system to the Australian people. My government remains very strongly committed to removing a hidden wholesale taxation system whereby many household goods are taxed at rates of 22 per cent. My government remains very committed to reforming the taxation system so that the cheats are caught, so that average families have a lighter tax burden and so that we have a fairer system all round.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the funeral accounts that would authenticate this bill.Leave not granted.46114611West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—How is your mate Pauline? Are you giving her preferences?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman!XK6Mrs WEST—Prime Minister, has your attention been drawn to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition this morning regarding interest rates? Does the market's response validate the predictions of the Leader of the Opposition?4611Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As it happens—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. You just ruled before under standing order 144 and if you are going to enforce that—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I allowed your colleague to ask the question.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—It is not in order to be asked a question to simply comment on what the Leader of the Opposition said. He is not responsible for what the Leader of the Opposition says.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Calwell will resume his seat.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—And that is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Calwell will resume his seat when I request him. The honourable member would realise that his colleague was allowed to ask her question. I drew attention to the processes within 144 and the contents that must be in a question. The Prime Minister can answer the question from the honourable member for Bowman.ZD4Mr HOWARD—When I was looking through the various news reports this morning, like the Treasurer I came across the ingenious defence made by the Leader of the Opposition of his deputy, in which he said, `Please don't look at what my deputy said.' As I read further down—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Why did you—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I found that the Leader of the Opposition was in fact suggesting that current economic settings were exerting upward pressure on interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition made this statement at about 11 o'clock this morning, and one would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition might have been roughly in tune with market circumstances. But, having made the allegation that the policies of the government were exerting upward pressure on interest rates, right on cue, eight minutes later at 11.08 a.m., the Commonwealth Bank of Australia issued a statement in which it said: `Australia's largest home loan provider, the Commonwealth Bank, today announced interest rate cuts of up to 0.35 per cent on its popular three-, four- and five-year fixed home loan rates.'Yesterday you had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that 7.5 is more than 7.8. This morning you had the Leader of the Opposition, in the course of trying to explain away what his deputy had done yesterday and the appalling mess his deputy had made of a doorstop yesterday, making the bold statement that the government's policies are pushing interest rates up or exerting upward pressure on interest rates, as he has been running around the country doing for the last couple of weeks. But not within a day, not within half an hour, not within 15 minutes, but within eight minutes of that statement having come off the wire the Commonwealth Bank of Australia says that they are cutting their interest rates even further.It is a demonstration that the leadership of the Australian Labor Party is bereft of any economic intellect, that the leadership of the Australian Labor Party is utterly disconnected with what is happening in the Australian economy, that the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in government ran this country deeply into debt. They gave us the highest interest rates for 25 or 30 years and, in the face of the biggest interest rate reductions for three decades, this morning you had the Leader of the Opposition trying to scare the Australian people into believing that there was upward pressure on interest rates.DT4CREANMr Crean—What would a GST do?ZD4Mr HOWARD—So unintimidating were his remarks that within eight minutes the markets were at work and the markets, through the agency of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia—DT4CREANMr Crean—Where would interest rates go then?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—were announcing, unbelievably almost in the eyes of people, given what has happened over the last few years—Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hotham.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They were announcing still further interest rate reductions.Mr Costello interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am very proud to say that my government has presided over interest rate levels that we have not seen since the late 1960s or the early 1970s. I think the Leader of the Opposition's understanding of market forces, so far as interest rates are concerned, is completely bereft of any reality. Not only is his deputy out of touch with economic circumstances and economic reality but, by his abysmal performance this morning, the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated he has no idea of what is going on with the Australian economy and he is totally unqualified to resume any responsibility for years into the future.46124612Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the report Impact of Trade Liberalisation and Increasing Imports on Australian Pig Prices —Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Would the honourable member for Oxley repeat her question? Would you mind repeating your question? It was very difficult to hear.BK6Ms HANSON—Has the Prime Minister seen the report Impact of Trade Liberalisation and Increasing Imports on Australian Pig Prices published by the University of Queensland and showing that foreign pig meat imports are destroying the Australian pork industry? When will your government invoke the safeguard provisions of article 19 of the World Trade Organisation in order to halt the importation of foreign pig meat and save the terribly threatened and important Australian industry? If you will not invoke these provisions, could you please explain to pork farmers why not?4612Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I have seen a summary of that. That particular report was raised with me when I met a group of pig producers in Toowoomba last Saturday and they put their situation to me. I undertook at that meeting to consider what had been put, and in fact I have conducted a number of discussions with colleagues about this matter. Somebody in the government will be having something to say on the subject within the next few days. But I take the opportunity given to me by the question asked by the honourable member to deal directly with the issue that is raised, and that is whether there is some simplistic solution to this problem by simply chopping off imports, because that is precisely what the honourable member is saying.It is very easy when you have an Australian industry under a bit of economic pressure as a result of imports to run around the country saying, `The answer to the problem is to choke off imports.' Unfortunately, most of the imports in this particular instance—unfortunately for the honourable member's argument—are coming from Canada. It so happens that we have something like an eight or nine to one trade balance against Canada. If we were to be so short-sighted as to chop off imports from a country in respect of which we have a trade balance of about nine to one, we would in fact be cutting off our nose to spite our face. That would be a very unwise thing to do.The international economic reality is that when it comes to a trading nation like Australia, we need markets. We need people to buy the goods and services we produce. If we do not buy the goods and services other people produce, they will not buy what we produce. That is a constant of international trade. I say this very deliberately because the honourable member has been running around the place saying that it is all very easy to solve these problems by chopping off imports. If you chop off imports in the wrong place, you will chop off Australian jobs. If you do that you will chop off Australian jobs.I therefore say to those people in the pig industry—and I am sympathetic to their position; I listened very carefully to what they had to say, just as I am sympathetic to any industry that is under import pressure—that, if you chop off imports from one source and there is retaliation, you will end up doing up far more damage to your country, you will destroy more jobs and you will destroy more industry than if you had not taken that action.It is about time that all of us who are interested in a sensible debate and all of us who are interested in the future of Australian industry face the reality of this and stop running around uttering and mouthing populist one-liners offering simplistic solutions that would in fact damage the situation and leave us with fewer jobs, weaker industry and a far more impoverished trade situation.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect! I will not warn you again.46134613Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House on Australia's recent export performance and, in particular, in the light of the last question, advise the House how much sugar Australia exports from Queensland to Canada?4613Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for O'Connor for his very timely question. I welcome some delegates from Farrer who are here today, I might add. I would point out that Queensland exports—hello! Where is the member for Oxley? She has gone again. She can get to Goombungee to declare that she is pro-choice on abortion, but she cannot hang about here in question time for more than a few minutes. She has missed over 70 divisions this year.Opposition members—Put her last! Put her last!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. I would suggest the members of the opposition remain silent.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—It is interesting that in the first two years on votes on actual legislation she has missed 100 out of 148 divisions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—On Monday, she missed another five divisions, including one on the wheat industry.Opposition members—Put her last! Put her last!CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—A point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Trade will resume his seat! When members of the opposition are silent, I will call the member for Kalgoorlie on a point of order.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the government will also remain silent. Does the member for Kalgoorlie have a point of order?CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—I did, Mr Speaker, but given the—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If you haven't one, sit down.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—It was a case of relevance. In the case of relevance—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Have you a point of order?CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—My point of order is on relevance. If the minister is not going to take any note of you, it makes it very hard to have a relevant point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will either raise his point of order or not keep standing.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—I have—on relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Right. Please resume your seat. The Deputy Prime Minister will be relevant to the question asked.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Queensland, through great export effort, in fact exports over $200 million of sugar to Canada. Australian agriculture exports over eight times in dollar value to Canada what we import from Canada, as the Prime Minister has said with regard to agricultural products. It is a very important market for us.I am very pleased the member for O'Connor, in his astute way, has highlighted the fact that we have a great investment in sensible trade liberalisation. I recognise there is no such thing as a level playing field. I also recognise that the economic firestorms raging through Asia have forced our exporters to join with the government strategy of diversifying to other parts of the world as they deal with a very difficult situation which exists on our doorstep with a number of our key Asian markets. Therefore, in commenting on the Australian national account figures and the in effect 4.9 or five per cent growth over the last 12 months, I salute our exporters who have helped make a contribution, especially over the 10-month figures.In regard to diversification, I want to make two additional points. Japan is the world's second largest economy. Yes, it is hovering around zero growth, and that is a matter of concern. But, if you are the second largest economy in the world, even at zero growth you still need a lot of Australian intermediate goods, including coal and iron ore. And thank God they do. Hence, our intermediate goods exports have contributed to the fact that in the first 10 months of this financial year our exports to Japan are up 15.4 per cent, our exports to Taiwan are up 16.7 per cent, and our exports to China are up 9.4 per cent.If we look at another part of the world, one which I share a deep interest with my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is about to go to the Middle East, the House would be interested to know that in the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi and Dubai, two-way trade is now $1.6 billion. In Saudi Arabia two-way trade is now $1.3 billion. Trade with Iran is $1 billion. With Egypt it is half a billion dollars. With Israel it is $394 million. The figures are available to the House through the trade outcomes and objective statement, which I tabled earlier this year. In other words, what we have done is help facilitate our export effort, help diversify our export effort, help demand and encourage demand, particularly with regard to our intermediate goods, and help with some hard edged trade negotiations at the bilateral, the regional and the multilateral levels.I want to add one other thing. In regard to the Australian national account figures, this is a bit of very important bookkeeping at the end of another quarter. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the troika of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, all three of whom through the economic management and leadership they have provided in regard to the budget and, in particular, the budget surplus are further helping to facilitate our export effort. If we were $10 billion in deficit today, if the Beazley deficit were still applying today, we would not be able to achieve those trade figures.The modernisation of Australian agriculture under the leadership provided by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has helped in that regard. The Australian government will do all it can to facilitate a diversified trade effort to the world, exports to every market opportunity in the world. We recognise there is no such thing as a level playing field, and we will work hard to further provide sensible support within the parameters of the World Trade Organisation to ensure that our exporters continue to create even more jobs.46144614Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the assessment by the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission that:Experience clearly demonstrates that [GST] compensation packages are extremely vulnerable to being undermined over time.Prime Minister, do you promise to never ever reduce the amount of compensation which is to be provided to Australians on low incomes under your GST proposal?4615Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware of that particular analysis but I am aware of the analysis by Professor Neil Warren, which said that after 1993 your government, despite its promises, introduced its own GST without compensation for low income earners. That is what you did. You went to the 1993 election campaign, you swore blind to the Australian public that you were against a GST and then, according to one of the greatest tax experts in Australia, you introduced your GST without compensation. I think a government that introduces a broad based indirect tax of the type you introduced after 1993 without compensation for the elderly, the sick and the poor is a government that deserves to be condemned.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—A point of order!Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members of the government will cease interjecting. The member for Jagajaga on a point of order.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked whether the Prime Minister would never ever reduce compensation to people on low incomes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will not use a point of order to repeat a question. The Prime Minister is answering the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The question was about an analysis of indirect taxes, and I am referring to an analysis of indirect taxation of which I am very comprehensively aware. It is an analysis that was carried out by somebody who is recognised as an Australian expert. What Neil Warren reminded us of was that Mr Beazley and Mr Keating, despite their promises to the contrary, after the 1993 election introduced their own version of the GST without any compensation.I can certainly assure the elderly of Australia that there is no way that my government is going to alter the taxation system to leave them disadvantaged. I also say to those people: do not take any notice of the scare campaign that is now being deliberately conducted by the Australian Labor Party. They are running around Australia putting pamphlets in letter boxes trying to scare the elderly of Australia, trying to scare the vulnerable. I have been handed a copy of a pamphlet that has been distributed by the member for Cunningham trying to scare the elderly of Australia. Absolutely disgraceful material is being distributed by the member for Cunningham.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—A point of order!Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. When government members are silent, I will hear the member for Jagajaga.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked whether the Prime Minister would promise to never ever reduce the compensation paid to people on low incomes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. The Prime Minister is talking about the disadvantaged.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They are already at it, Mr Speaker. They are running around the highways and the back streets of Australia putting pamphlets in letter boxes, and they are trying to scare people. You did that in 1993, and I would say to every Australian who gets one of these ALP pamphlets that you got that material in 1993. Some of you were deceived by it. Some of you voted Labor. After you got the Labor government that you voted for, that Labor government, having campaigned against a GST, introduced one of its own without compensation.Not only did they repudiate everything they had said; they crushed the elderly, the sick and the poor by introducing a GST without compensation. You even had the spectacle of people like Peter Sams and Michael Easson of the New South Wales Labor Council saying that the Dawkins budget of 1993 had more comprehensively betrayed the working class of Australia than any budget that had ever been introduced in the history of this country.What has Neil Warren's analysis demonstrated? On page 3 of this analysis he makes it very clear that a GST was introduced without compensation. He says:Even though in practice no-one advocates the introduction of a GST without compensation, an important finding of this paper is that this was effectively what Labor did in the period of 1993 to 1996.You have no credibility on this issue. In 1993, despite your promises, you introduced your own GST and you did it in a heartless, cruel way without any compensation for the elderly.46164616McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the government's response to Australian Paper's announcement of its decision to close the Burnie paper mill?4616Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I say in response to the member for Corangamite that our response will certainly not include rejection of the largest manufacturing investment in Australia's history, as was the response of the Labor government in 1989 to the blue-collar workers of north-west Tasmania. This morning I had a meeting with ministers responsible in various portfolio areas, and we have given consideration to a package of measures to help respond to the impact of the closure. I note, incidentally, that many comments have been made by community leaders recognising that this closure has not come about as a result of any policy failure or policy decision of my government. Amongst those statements is included one—and the member for Braddon will correct me if I am wrong—from the mayor of one of the local shires or municipalities who is a member of the Australian Labor Party—in fact, he may even be a candidate for the Australian Labor Party in the forthcoming election.On Friday, the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister for Social Security, at my request, will both be going to Burnie to meet community representatives. They will be discussing the implications of the closure, and they will be discussing with community leaders various responses that might responsibly be undertaken. Against the background of those discussions, the government will be making some announcement and giving consideration to a further series of responses. I take this opportunity to point out that, despite the intense disappointment the government feels about the decision to close the pulp mill and the concern we have for the welfare of the 150 to 200 men and women and their families who will be affected by the closure,—RH4KERRMr Kerr—Worse work practices than the MUA.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison will remain silent.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Worse work practices than the MUA.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Denison.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is worthwhile pointing out that in the year to April 1998 there were 2,900 new jobs created in north-west Tasmania and the unemployment rate over that period in that region has fallen by 1.3 per cent. So the overall employment direction in north-west Tasmania, despite the adverse circumstances of the pulp mill, has been very positive. I remind the House that, since being elected, the government has put in place a number of very positive employment measures for the people of north-west Tasmania. There was the regional forest agreement, which was criticised by the member for Denison; the regional forest agreement that represented a very generous provision and which was put in place by the federal government. It is not only pro-environment but also pro-employment. And there was, of course, the Bass Strait vehicle subsidy, which has led to a strengthening of the tourist industry in Tasmania.I again say what I told the House yesterday, about the great employment opportunity of a generation for north-west Tasmanians—the Wesley Vale pulp mill—being sacrificed on the altar of the Labor Party pursuing the agenda of a sectional interest. The rejection of the Wesley Vale pulp mill represented the height of the determination of the Labor Party to pay court to sectional interests at the expense of its traditional working-class base. I notice the member for Lalor, the National President of the Labor Party, is nodding his agreement. KH4JONESMr Barry Jones—No, I am not! I did not.ZD4Mr HOWARD—He is nodding his agreement because in 1989 you had this classic example. I applaud the candour of the National President of the Australian Labor Party because once again he has reminded the House that, when Labor was in government, Labor was driven by sectional interests.KH4JONESMr Barry Jones—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. What I was attempting to do was to interject to say that the main complainants were the fishermen—the fishing industry was being destroyed in the area. The Prime Minister has completely misrepresented the situation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I know the member for Lalor always has something interesting to say, but he is not making a relevant point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—What happened in Wesley Vale was that the Labor Party faced a choice between giving blue-collar workers in north-west Tasmania a job, a future and some hope, or placating the greenies—and they chose the latter. They chose the green option and they threw the blue-collar workers to the wolves. Nothing that Labor has said since or nothing that Labor might say to try to exploit the Burnie situation at present can alter the fact that when you were in government you sacrificed the jobs of hundreds, if not thousands, of blue-collar workers in order to meet your green agenda. You did it with Wesley Vale; you did it all over the country. It was a deliberate tactic to serve the sectional interests of the Australian Labor Party, and that is one of the reasons why, in their hundreds of thousands, blue-collar workers all over the nation deserted you in 1996.46174617Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to the statement by Professor Neil Warren on ABC television on 18 May, who said:People are saying the GST will solve all our ills. I mean, the GST will not, and I think it is a mistake that it is going to cure our foreign debt and create thousands of jobs. It is just not going to do that.I also ask the Prime Minister: is that the same Neil Warren who last September estimated that a 10 per cent GST would increase inflation by up to 5.2 per cent after repealing the wholesale sales tax? Does the Prime Minister still think that Neil Warren is one of the greatest tax experts in Australia?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, you have a point of order behind you.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He hasn't been on TV for a while. Give him a go.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Banks will permit the House to hear, we can hear the member for Parramatta.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: there are three brief points. Firstly, you have already warned the opposition about lengthy quotes from media statements. Secondly, standing orders specifically suggest that, where a media statement is allowed to be quoted, it must not contain comment, argument or opinion or material otherwise out of order. Finally, I would suggest that there is not a shred of that question which is capable of satisfying standing order 142. The comments of anyone external to the House are not the responsibility of the Prime Minister or any other minister, and the question should be ruled out of order.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the members of the opposition had remained silent, we all could have heard the point of order. In fact, the question was directed towards the credentials of Dr Neil Warren, whose name has been presented before the House. Consequently, it is in order and I call on the Prime Minister to respond.4617Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is yes, I still do have a great deal of respect for Dr Warren and I regard him as one of the foremost tax experts in Australia. You ask me do I agree with his statement that a GST will not solve every imaginable ill, or words to that effect; of course I do. I have never asserted that it would. I take the opportunity afforded me by the very convenient question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to say that, in order to build even greater security for the Australian economy, what you need is reform on a number of fronts. Reforming the taxation system is the next logical thing Australia must do in order to further strengthen the Australian economy.We have the budget into balance, indeed into surplus. We have business investment running strongly. We have reformed the industrial relations system. We have many other micro-economic reforms under way and the next thing we have to do, not in a revolutionary but in a sensible evolutionary way, is to reform the Australian taxation system. Looking at the indirect taxation system is part of it.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about speeches made by Dr Warren. When you trawl around for speeches made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is interesting what you come up against. One of the things that I came up against was a compilation of speeches and statements made, which are available. There is a very interesting document entitled Speeches and statements available on the Labor Party's Internet site. Going through it, this is what a search reveals. The ALP Internet site has a section called `Speeches and policy statements'. It contains, so it says, a list of major speeches and policy statements by the leadership group. That sounds impressive.For the years 1997 and 1998 the site lists the following: 48 speeches and statements by Kim Beazley; three by Cheryl Kernot; three by Mark Latham, and a book; two by Simon Crean; one by Paul Keating called `A prospect of Europe'; one by Martin Ferguson; one by Nick Bolkus; one by Martyn Evans; and one by Bob McMullan. There is a strange omission—there are none from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In the whole of 1997 and 1998, there was none.So it is apparent that the Leader of the Opposition's injunction at the doorstop this morning has had retrospective effect and that all of the speeches of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have been deleted. I address a heartfelt plea to the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Gary Gray: please can we have Gareth's speeches, because we love them?46184618Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In recent days has Mr Christopher Skase applied for another Australian passport? If so, what is your reaction to that application?4618Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. I recognise that the honourable member for Fadden is one of all of the members on this side of the House who want to see Mr Skase brought back to Australia to face charges—unlike some of the people over there, apparently.We have been trying to clean up this problem which was left for us by, above all, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. As the House knows, I cancelled Mr Skase's last Australian passport on 29 April last year. That passport has now been returned to Australia by the Spanish authorities. They confiscated it when Mr Skase applied to renew his residence permit in Majorca which expired on 13 May this year.On 27 May—that is, last Wednesday—a lawyer representing Mr Christopher Skase wrote to the Australian Embassy in Madrid seeking a new Australian passport for Mr Skase. Mr Skase claimed he needed a new passport because he now has no identification documents. I can inform the House that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will not be issuing Mr Skase with a new passport. That is the policy of this government. We have informed Mr Skase's lawyer, through our embassy in Madrid, that his application for a new passport has been rejected and that he will not receive a passport.Immediately after question time, I will be meeting with the Spanish Minister for Industry and Energy, Mr Pique. During our discussions, I will be taking the opportunity to ask that the Spanish government not renew Mr Skase's residency in Spain. Whilst the Australian government will not be issuing Mr Skase with a new passport, we are prepared to do one thing for him; that is, to issue him with a travel document to enable him to return to Australia. And that's it.46194619Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the terms of reference to the waterfront consultancy tabled in the Senate on 23 October last year. Is the Prime Minister aware that part of the document containing a direct reference to another attachment setting out the role of the Prime Minister and his staffer Arthur Sinodinos was deliberately deleted? Prime Minister, did you or your office have any role in the decision to delete that reference?4619Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I cannot recall the circumstances of that. I will have a look, and if there is anything useful I can tell the House I will.46194619Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—I address my question to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what role detention policy has played in maintaining the integrity of Australia's borders? What has the coalition government done to ensure that Australia's detention centres provide an acceptable standard of detention?4619Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory for his question in relation to the maintenance of the integrity of our borders. It is a particularly relevant issue to the Northern Territory, as in the past it has been one of the places where people have clandestinely attempted to enter Australia. An important aspect of dealing with the issue of the extent to which people seek to circumvent our very reasonable immigration requirements is the issue of how you manage the entry of people who seek to come clandestinely. We know that in the early 1990s hundreds and hundreds of people arrived by boat, and this year we expect something of the order of 1,700 unauthorised arrivals by air. We have seen very significant trafficking and people making large amounts of money out of smuggling people from one country to another and exploiting people's vulnerability.Some of the people who seek to access Australia may have legitimate claims for refugee status for protection. That is a matter for which we have proper regard. We do accept our international obligations and we do allow those people who have proper claims to access Australia promptly. But, in relation to those people who arrive with no authority, often without any identification or documentation, who have deliberately disguised the way in which they are trying to enter Australia, you need to have a framework of law to deal with that situation. The framework of law has to be complemented by a range of measures to deal with those initiatives.That does not seem to be well understood by some members of the human rights bodies that we have, by some well-meaning people who argue that when people arrive clandestinely they ought to be released into the community immediately or shortly after. The fact is that if you are going to ensure the integrity of the borders you need to have a system in place in which people are detained and, if they have no claims, are available for removal. You need to have a situation in which you are able to effectively administer that arrangement, and detention complements that regime. It is not an end in itself, but without it our ability to remove people in a timely way would not occur.It is important to know that over a period of time we have been able to effectively reform the way in which this task is being undertaken. Today, protection visa applications are dealt with, for those in detention, in 51 days. The average length of detention for unauthorised boat arrivals in November 1995 was 417 days, compared with the average length of detention for all unauthorised arrivals—that includes boat and air arrivals—of 174 days. There has been a very effective removal of people, such that we have only 13 boat arrivals presently in Australia, and one is seeking to resolve their situation as quickly as possible. Those who refuse to cooperate, those who refuse to pursue their applications, can often be held for times longer than we would like.Finally, in relation to the question of the way in which people are maintained in Australia, let me say that there had been, I think, except for the purchase of the Port Hedland detention centre, no activity by the former government in looking at the way in which accommodation was provided. In the time that we have been in office, some $12.5 million has been spent on upgrading the Port Hedland detention centre, and in the most recent budget provision has been made for a $35 million project to upgrade the Villawood detention centre. They are important developments, ensuring that we do detain people in humane conditions and appropriate conditions—8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—It says something about your government.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That is right. Tell the full story. We were looking for alternative sites.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Reid and the member for Banks will remain silent—and so will members of the government.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The full story, for the honourable member for Banks, is that there was an abysmal record that led to large numbers of people seeking to enter Australia clandestinely. They did over time. We have turned that around, and we do not hold people in detention for the sorts of periods that brought Australia into disrepute before international human rights bodies. I have been defending Australia in relation to your record. If you want to raise your record, put it up every time and I will compare it with ours.46204620McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows that by my colleague the member for Melbourne. Prime Minister, can you assure the House that, prior to 23 October, you had no knowledge of or involvement in the development of a government strategy involving the prospect of industrial action that would give stevedores the option of dismissing their employees and rehiring new people under different arrangements?4620Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can assure the House that, from the time I became Prime Minister, in relation to the Australian waterfront I had one single aim, and that was to bring about reform of the Australian waterfront. Can I say that that remains my attitude. I want to praise the work of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business in relation to that.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Another non-answer.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Answer the question.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. If the members from the opposition persist in interjecting, they will not be in the House to do so for long. The honourable member for Canberra on a point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—My point of order is on the very fundamental question of relevance. The question specifically wanted to know the Prime Minister's level of knowledge or involvement in the development of a particular strategy, and that generalised blah is not a response to that question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The level of knowledge is not specifically a subject for questioning in parliament, but the Prime Minister is answering. I suggest that the question was in general in order and I ask the Prime Minister to respond.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat that from the time I became Prime Minister I had the aim in relation to the waterfront of bringing about reform. I specifically instructed the two ministers in my government who are responsible, the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development and the member for Hume and the current Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Naturally, in the course of that many options and many proposals were discussed. Those discussions and examination of those proposals proceeded upon the basis that we wanted a reformed, competitive waterfront and that change should occur to achieve those objectives, and upon the understanding always that change should be in accordance with the laws of Australia. I have always said that I would support efforts by anybody to reform the Australian waterfront provided those efforts were in accordance with the laws of Australia. That was my view, it is my view and it will remain my view, and I am very proud it.46214621Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Can the minister inform the House what policy initiatives are currently being implemented in his portfolio? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That question is getting very close to being out of order. I will ask the minister to respond, but I suggest you look at the framing of those questions a little more carefully.4621Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question. The member for Herbert, who is a very good representative for North Queensland, is always lobbying for assistance for his area from all government ministers. A couple of items of note that have taken place out of my portfolio in his area are the upgrading of the national highway system on the Bruce Highway and the upgrading of Wilcox Street in Townsville, which was a $21 million project which was promised by Labor for 13 years but never undertaken. It was one of those 14th year commitments: `We were gunna do it.' The coalition government has just brought down a very good budget which produced a $2.7 billion surplus—a turnaround of $13 billion from what we inherited from Labor.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—And cut the national highway again.SU5Mr VAILE—As part of that budget, the road funding—I will come to the interjection of the member for Melbourne in a minute—was $1.62 billion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will address the question and not come to the honourable member for Melbourne.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—You can, mr Speaker; let him go for it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne.SU5Mr VAILE—The last budget that the Labor Party brought down was $1.594 billion for roads, so it was an increase on that. We also had a $250 million allocation for rail and $3.5 billion worth of programs for regional Australia. The coalition knows the direction in which it wants to take Australia. We have a very clear view of where we are going. That contrasts greatly with the Australian Labor Party, which seems to be in a bit of a quandary as to the direction they want to go in. With the leadership up front here, it is whether they want to take the middle road, and with the young and the restless on the other end there is one wanting to take off to the right and the other wanting to take off to the left.I was interested to note an article in yesterday's Age written by the member for Melbourne, entitled `Why Labor Must Take a New Road.' He said in that article:At the recent Victorian ALP Conference, John Brumby urged delegates to embrace the politics of the Third Way.Not the first way or the second way—the third way.He went on to say:Why are leading Labor politicians in Australia starting to identify it as a potential source of policy inspiration?They are plagiarising the policies of New Labour in the United Kingdom. They do not have any policies for Australia. He went on to say:Without such principles New Labour risks being no more than a group of well-intentioned men and women making it up as they go along.That is exactly what the Labor Party are doing. They are making it up as they go along. The penultimate line in this article is the last one, where he said—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—A point of order, Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I point out to the minister that he is stretching a bit far from his portfolio at the moment.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not think I need to point out to you that this is entirely irrelevant to the question that was asked. It has nothing to do with road funding or with anything in the minister's portfolio. He should be made to sit down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat. The question itself was so wide, it was within the parameter of the question but it is quite outside the minister's portfolio and I suggest he resumes answering the question, relating to issues within his portfolio and within the question.SU5Mr VAILE—The question was about the policy initiatives of our government and alternative proposals, and the member for Melbourne has put up some alternative proposals. He said:Labor must look beyond seductive slogans like the Third Way and understand the significance of the economic transformation.We can only presume that he is talking about the significance of the economic transformation that the coalition government has introduced over the last 2½ years in fixing up the structural deficiencies of the Australian economy that we inherited from the Australian Labor Party.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will conclude his answer.SU5Mr VAILE—It is only the coalition government that has a view to the future of Australia. The Labor Party does not know which direction it is going in.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am reluctant to raise this with you but in this segment of the parliament we cannot participate in the affairs of the parliament because we cannot hear.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hinkler has raised a matter that I have been endeavouring to address. The acoustics are still appalling. I know it is hard but I ask all members to take note of the fact that each of the members has an equal right to be heard and to hear in this place.46224622Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—Does the Treasurer agree with the Business Coalition for Tax Reform that reforming the vertical fiscal imbalance in Commonwealth-state finances should be a fundamental element of any serious tax reform package?4622Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question. When the Prime Minister announced that the government was serious about tax reform and would take a policy to the next election for tax reform, he laid down five principles. The five principles included broad based indirect tax, significant personal income tax cuts, compensation for those in need, and the fifth was addressing Commonwealth-state financial relations.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—What was the fourth?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I cannot remember the fourth for the moment, but there is a fourth.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The fifth was addressing Commonwealth-state relations, and that is the basis upon which we approach tax reform. One of the difficulties where you are putting together a tax reform package—and we have sought to engage the states in this discussion—is that not all of the states have the same view. The meeting that we had with state premiers to discuss issues was very productive, and I think a majority of the state premiers are significantly committed to tax reform. But there is, of course, one Labor Premier. That Labor Premier—although I believe he will say privately that he agrees with tax reform—is being heavied by the leadership of the Australian Labor Party, for political opportunist reasons, not to engage in it.I think Premier Carr if he had his druthers—he is quite an intelligent man—would join the movement for tax reform.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—But what about your mate, Jeff? He has done so much to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman has been warned. I ask him to leave the House under 304A for an hour.The honourable member for Batman thereupon withdrew from the chamber.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It will not reduce the IQ of the Labor frontbench.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his answer and refrain from personal innuendo.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Premier of New South Wales, I believe, would be interested in tax reform. One must remember that, when the government first announced that it was going to engage in tax reform, we got support from the federal leadership of the Labor Party. The deputy leader of the Labor Party said on Radio 3LO on 19 May 1997:If the business community and the welfare community can get together and come up with some proposal that makes some kind of sense on all these fronts, that genuinely meets the concerns that people had about equity of attacks on consumption or expenditure and it meets the needs of the larger economy, then of course we would have to look at any such proposal.So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was prepared to join the tax reform, and then of course Labor, for completely opportunistic reasons, ruled itself out of the tax debate. In ruling federal Labor out of the tax debate, all the state branches were automatically ruled out, and as a result Premier Carr is unable to agree.This puts us into a difficult position, doesn't it, because you have the Premier of the largest state who, whatever his private views, has been blackballed from the tax reform debate by Beazley, who has also blackballed Evans. This is, of course, giving a difficulty to discussing Commonwealth-state relations, but we are seeking to make progress in relation to it, and addressing vertical fiscal imbalance is one of the significant areas of doing that.Can I assure the honourable member for Moore that, as the government progresses these things, it progresses in relation to all five principles that the Prime Minister had mentioned—broad based indirect tax, lower personal income taxes, compensation for those that would be otherwise disadvantaged, no increase in the overall tax to GDP position and Commonwealth-state relations; all five principles that the Prime Minister outlined.46234623Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the results of the recent surveys examining the employability and economic contribution to Australia of skilled migrants? What do these results indicate about the coalition government's approach to balancing the migration program?4623Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Petrie for her question, particularly as the honourable member for Petrie is a strong supporter of the immigration program and certainly for the maintenance of its integrity.DT4CREANMr Crean—You got them in.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—And I am glad the honourable members have drawn attention to the way in which, as part of our approach to migration and the participation of people in the Australian community, that people from non-English speaking backgrounds can settle in Australia, settle well and rise to very distinguished places in this parliament. The honourable member for Petrie demonstrates that admirably.I do thank her for the question because it enables me to tell the House about the recent data that has emanated from the longitudinal survey of independent migrants. The fact is that independent migrants have had a very positive impact upon our economy, upon employment and government finances. The survey shows that three years after arrival they have a labour market participation—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is far too high a level of conversation in the chamber. I would ask members to please remain silent.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—This survey shows that three years after arrival independent migrants exhibit these characteristics: they have a labour market participation rate of more than 90 per cent, their unemployment rate is well below the Australian average at five per cent, the majority have obtained employment which is commensurate with their employment experience prior to migration and they earn on average over $40,000 per year.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect has been warned. You are talking far too loudly. I ask you to leave the House under standing order 304A.The honourable member for Prospect thereupon withdrew from the chamber.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—In other words, what this survey demonstrates is that those migrants create more jobs than they fill. This has to, I think, be characterised against the sort of program that we saw before we came to office—one that was lacking balance. Clearly the information that I released last week in the independent economic analysis by Econtech showed it contributes very significantly, as a result of the changes we have made, to economic benefits for all Australians in the form of a $95 per person per annum increase in income. This government, by enhancing skill, age and English language requirements for skilled migrants, has ensured that all Australians benefit significantly as a result of the entry of skilled migrants.This contrasts with the position that the Labor Party is taking. The Labor leader made it clear last week in the article he wrote for the Australia-Israel Review that it is intent on increasing the family reunion stream without changing the total program numbers. The impact of that would be to increase family reunion entrants at the expense of skilled migrants. In other words, it would increase the number of people who are highly welfare dependent—those people who are very often non bona fide—because if you look at the family reunion program as it was conducted by our predecessors—Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Understand this: most of the family reunion program is for spouses, de facto partners and fiances.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—You are keeping spouses out.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell! The member for Calwell will remain silent!Dr Theophanous interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Calwell.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Those people who have bona fide applications access Australia. It is demand driven. If you want to increase it, the only way you will increase it is by introducing more people in sham relationships—more people who are non bona fide.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—That is rubbish.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—That is the only way you are going to get up: if all the spouse applicants who are bona fide are able to access Australia. If it is demand driven, the only way to increase it is to get non bona fide applicants.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—A point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. He should have in mind he should not respond to interjections. The member for Calwell on a point of order.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, the minister is misleading the House on the situation of the spouses in this country.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Many are being held up for up to 18 months before they can come—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat! That is not a point of order. There are ways by which he can raise his point of view if he should wish to do so. That is not one of them.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Let me move on from the point I was making to the only substantial area in family reunion, which is in relation to parents. They can be parents who are aged or working age. The fact is that we have put a cap on those numbers. We do not apologise for that; we have done it very deliberately. The longitudinal survey demonstrated why that was necessary. The position with family reunion entrants is that generally the labour participation rate is only 20 per cent—I am sorry—this is in relation to the parent category; let me make it clear.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Are they bogus parents?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—No, I am not suggesting that they are bogus parents.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question, not to interjections.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I am simply saying that in the parent category they have a labour participation rate of only 20 per cent and that includes working age parents. The unemployment rate is more than 60 per cent. They earn on average just over $10,000 per year. In other words, the positive economic outcomes of skilled migration would be lost if you were to shift the balance back to family reunion. That is the point that needs to be understood by the opposition and the Australian community. The Labor Party wants to turn the clock back to the point where the Australian community would have absolutely no confidence in the way the program was being conducted.46254625Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it true that your government was on notice about the Burnie closure but it still dragged its feet on anti-dumping and has done nothing to bring forward a value-added strategy for the industry as part of the RFA process which you spoke about just recently? Will you undertake to personally visit Burnie to see the devastating impact this closure will have on the community and will you also undertake to immediately develop an industry plan for the forest products industry and personally talk to Amcor about opportunities for new investment in the Burnie region?4625Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I wonder where the member for Lyons was, and I wonder what he said, when Graham Richardson said on 8 September 1989RH4KERRMr Kerr—A point of order!ZD4Mr HOWARD—oh, we will come to you in a minute too.RH4KERRMr Kerr—On a point of order: the Prime Minister's absolute contempt for the environment is well known. But, if he could get on with his—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. If the member for Denison wishes to make a point of order he can do so. Engaging in debate during question time is totally contrary to the standing orders, as the honourable member knows.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The sensitivity of the Australian Labor Party to the special interest group politics that it played at the expense of blue-collar workers—and continues to play at the expense of blue-collar workers—is demonstrated by the actions of the Carr Labor government in New South Wales where it is selling out interests of blue-collar workers in the timber industry in the coastal regions of New South Wales.RH4KERRMr Kerr—A point of order!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members will remain silent, before I call the honourable member. The member for Burke! Has the member for Denison a point of order? It needs to be within the standing orders, I point out to him.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I do, and it is on relevance: this question was asked by my colleague the honourable member for Lyons, specifically about a Tasmanian matter of national concern. The Prime Minister is not answering the question relevantly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is entirely within standing orders. The Prime Minister is talking specifically about redundancies, as I hear his answer, and that is in accordance with the general drift of the question asked by the honourable member for Lyons.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I was saying in response to the member for Lyons, I wonder where he was and what he said when Graham Richardson proudly boasted as a senior minister in the Hawke Labor government:There is absolutely no reason for me to apologise to anyone over the government's handling of the Wesley Vale proposal.That particular decision destroyed the job prospects of hundreds of blue-collar workers in Tasmania and it was done by the Labor Party. You destroyed the interests of the men and women you are meant to represent in this parliament.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—A point of order!ZD4Mr HOWARD—You do not like this, do you?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—On a point of order of relevance: the question was about the future; the answer continues to be about the past.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is about employment opportunities in Burnie. There is no point of order.ZI4ROCHERMr Rocher—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: is it disorderly for a member to raise a point of order in exactly the same terms that you have ruled out of order? Is that not disorderly?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is disorderly. At the same time it is within the province of the standing orders: if members feel there is an issue of relevance they should raise that issue. At the same time the Prime Minister has heard my ruling; he is within the standing orders. I ask him to resume his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is what Graham Richardson said. I also wonder where the member for Lyons was and what he said when Christine Milne, who conspired with Graham Richardson to destroy hundreds of jobs in north-west Tasmania, said:I am absolutely delighted that Noranda and North Broken Hill are not going to proceed with the Wesley Vale pulp mill.That was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to give new economic life and hope to the people of north-west Tasmania; and the Labor Party and the Green movement ignored the interests of blue-collar workers. You destroyed the one-in-a-generation opportunity they had for a secure economic future. You neglected the interests of your trade union base to pay court to the special interest groups of the Green movement. So I start by reminding the member for Lyons of the abysmal record that your government and your party have. I also remind him that the closure—DT4CREANMr Crean—I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The question is: is he going to Burnie? Is he going to take a personal interest? He seems to indicate that he has no intention to answer that part of the question, and he should.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is entirely relevant within the ambit of the general question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You have also asked me in your question about the timber industry. You have asked me about value adding. I would remind the member for Lyons that we have put record money and record planning into value adding for the timber industry in Australia. The decision that we took in relation to the regional forest agreement in Tasmania was a pro-environmental and pro-jobs decision. Unlike the attitude that was taken when you were in government in relation to blue collar workers, we were able to balance the interests of both.I have already announced that the Minister for Finance, in whom I have enormous confidence and trust, and the Minister for Social Security, two very senior ministers in my government, will be going to Burnie on Friday. I am quite certain that when they go to Burnie on Friday they will meet many people who will say to them: `If only the Labor government had built the Wesley Vale pulp mill' or `If only the government had not bowed to the sectoral interests of the radical environmental movement.' They will be reminded by my colleague that men like the member for Denison were responsible. The member for Denison is proud of the fact that he has destroyed the jobs of hundreds of blue collar workers in north-west Tasmania. He is proud of the role that he played in stopping what would have been the largest manufacturing investment in Australia's history.You had an opportunity when you were in government to build a future for the blue collar workers of north-west Tasmania. You could have built that pulp mill. You bowed to the pressure of the Greens and it will ever be to your discredit in the minds and the hearts of the blue collar workers and the battlers of Tasmania that, when they needed your help, when you could afford to help them, you let them down, you ignored them and you threw them on the scrap heap.46264626Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, access to services is a major priority for people living in regional and rural Australia, including those in my electorate of Capricornia. Given that one-third of the veteran community lives outside major metropolitan areas, can you tell the House what the government has done to improve services for veterans and war widows in regional areas? In particular, what has been done to provide veterans with access to information about their entitlements?4626Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—Today is the 56th anniversary of the great naval battle of Midway in the Pacific during the Second World War. I acknowledge the great support that the member for Capricornia gives to the veteran community in his electorate. There is no doubt that our veterans and war widows, wherever they live, need access to good services, particularly if they can be found in their home town or region.Since coming to government it has been a priority of the government not only to focus on the needs of our veterans who live in urban areas but also, because one-third of our veterans and war widows live outside urban Australia, it has been important to make sure that those in regional and rural areas have access to information services. This is an area of government service that was not delivered under the Labor Party when they were in government for 13 years.It is important, too, that veterans do not have to rely solely on telephone access for this valuable service or information. Since coming to government less than two and a quarter years ago, we have not only introduced new services for veterans in rural Australia, including psychiatric services, podiatry services and more easily accessed transport services, but one of our most important improvements is that we have made it easier for veterans to gain information about their entitlements. Only recently in Rockhampton, the member for Capricornia's town, the TPI Association through the joint venture scheme was successful in gaining $3,500 for transport services for its TPI members and $4,500 for other services for its association.Since coming to government we have opened up veterans affairs network offices in Bendigo, Maroochydore and Toowoomba. We have also established information services for veterans throughout New South Wales through the New South Wales government access centres in Gilgandra, in Grenfell, in Oberon; and through the Queensland government agents program, in Biloela, Cunnamulla, Blackall and Julia Creek. We have established information services through Centrelink in Orange, in the member for Calare's electorate, in your own electorate, Mr Speaker, in Tamworth; in Wagga Wagga, and in Rockhampton in the member for Capricornia's electorate. Soon we will be doing it in Mount Gambier in South Australia.Contracted information services have also been established at Roma and Emerald, in Queensland. We have contracted community development services in Mildura and in Darwin. We have also assisted the veteran community to establish veteran information centres in Alice Springs, Port Lincoln and Murray Bridge. We are currently negotiating with the Tasmanian state government for information services to be provided in Smithton and also in Queenstown.This is the way the government is acknowledging that one-third of veterans live outside of metropolitan Australia. The information that these offices provide is invaluable to our veteran community. We have established 22 information services locations throughout Australia since coming to government and there are more to come. This is acknowledgment of our veteran community and the very special place they hold not only in urban Australia but also in rural and remote parts of our nation.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations462715:36:004627Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make two personal explanations.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Firstly, in question time today the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) quoted from an article that was published in the Age on Tuesday that was written by me. He quoted several points, one of which commenced with the words:New Labor risks being no more than a group of well-intentioned men and women.That quote was not from me; it was a quote from Will Hutton, who is the editor of the Observer in London. They were not my words. So he misrepresented my position.Secondly, on 12 and 14 May Senator Sandy Macdonald in the Senate stated that I had said that, `it is impossible for us in the ALP to defend the indefensible' with respect to the MUA. He was, I believe, repeating comments that the Minister for Workplace Relations (Mr Reith) made on TV a little while ago. I did not make those statements. I am sure that Senator Macdonald repeated them inadvertently.15:38:004628Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—In this morning's Hobart Mercury and also previewed on the ABC late last night there was an appalling headline `Minister slams doomed workers'. That cruelly misrepresented what I said in question time yesterday. I did refer to some of the unsatisfactory work practices which had been aided and abetted by the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) in his days in the ACTU, but the theme of my answer was to acknowledge the contribution and the substantial advances that workers had made over recent times. Indeed, I called on the company to respond to that improvement so that these workers could continue to operate in the plant and obtain productive employment. Unfortunately, this is another case of a newspaper using cheap headlines rather than honest reporting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs can only use personal explanations to identify where he has been misrepresented.15:39:004628Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The Prime Minister (Mr Howard), in question time, made a number of allegations which I think can be adequately summarised by the suggestion—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think you will point out where you have been misrepresented.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I think I am accurately summarising the Prime Minister's misrepresentation suggesting that I was party to selling out blue-collar workers in north-west Tasmania. Might I say that the decision of the former Labor government of which I—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This opportunity afforded to members is not an opportunity to debate the issues. It is not sufficient for him to say that allegations have been made; what he has to say is that statements about the member aggrieved by the misrepresentation have been made. That is not what he is now saying; he is simply attempting to debate it. He ought to take a leaf out of the book of the member for Melbourne, who clearly understood what was to be done.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has raised his point of order. The member for Denison, as a former minister of this place, should be fully aware that he can only show where he has been personally misrepresented. The Leader of the House validly raised application of the standing orders and I suggest that the member shows where he has been personally misrepresented.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The Prime Minister misrepresented me by a direct allegation made against me in those terms. I reject it absolutely.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Unless he personally referred to you as the member for Denison—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—He personally referred to me!WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order—Mr Allan Morris interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has the call, not the member for Newcastle.WI4REITHMr Reith—The member just said that he has been misrepresented because the Prime Minister made allegations. That is not the purpose of the personal explanation. The purpose of a personal explanation is for a member to show where he has been misrepresented. If it were an opportunity simply to respond to allegations, we would be here until Christmas. Responding to allegations is not part of this process.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison shall show where he has been personally misrepresented. I allow him to proceed so we can hear more than the first sentence.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I was misrepresented by the Prime Minister's statement that I had sold out blue-collar workers in north-west Tasmania. That is not true. The reason why the Wesley Vale mill was refused was an environmental problem which the company refused to rectify.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is now a debate; it is not a personal explanation.Questions to the Speaker462946294629Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—Now that the sorry situation of Sorry Day has passed I notice the Aboriginal flags are still flying. Is it your intention to keep them flying? If so, shouldn't this decision be made by the parliament, not unilaterally? If it is your intention to do so, would you also consider making 26 May henceforth known as Sir Ronald and Saint Onan's Day?4629Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member, had he been in the chamber, would have known that when they were first mounted I explained to the House that they would be flown for this sitting fortnight. That continues and they will remain where they are, until the end of the fortnight.46294629Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to page 4156 of yesterday's Hansard and a question to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel about a new industry policy and, in particular, to the point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition pointing out that a ministerial statement should be made. As a consequence of your ruling and of the reluctance of the minister to make such a statement, members have had difficulty obtaining a copy of the report. Will you, on behalf of members of the House, seek to ensure that they can obtain a copy of the policy, as no member should be spared its general mediocrity and occasional plagiarism?4629Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The last part of the question is a bit dubious but I share the honourable member's concern that press statements of public policy pronouncements prior to question time that are then used as a vehicle for an answer in this House create great difficulty for the members of the chamber. I would ask the minister if it is possible for copies of the document which she tabled to be made available to members. I will follow that question through. To all ministers I would say that it is far preferable that statements of that significance be made in the chamber and not outside, particularly on the eve of parliament sitting. It may have been a practice that occurred during previous governments but I hope it does not proceed with this one.46294629Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—Mr Speaker, are you concerned that government members' questions to ministers which clearly have been prepared in advance of question time by the minister and or his or her office are contravening standing orders in that ministers should not respond to their own questions? Will you conduct an inquiry into this practice, which has become standard procedure, of written questions being prepared by ministers and given to backbenchers to mouth, parrot-like, at question time? This farcical—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable gentleman has asked his question. Having raised it, he cannot continue to debate it. Have you finished your question?ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—I have not finished.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If you have a question, finish it, but you cannot engage in debate on its content.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—In view of this and in view of the government's pre-election promise to lift parliamentary standards, will you, Mr Speaker, take steps to ensure that spontaneity and legitimacy are restored to questions without notice by conducting an inquiry; and, if not, can you indicate to the House what steps you can take to protect the sanctity of question time as originally intended?4630Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In answer to the honourable member for Lowe, the Speaker has no control over the nature and character of questions raised within this chamber.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—You are best qualified.10000Mr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Shortland will restrain himself. There is no way by which the person sitting in this chair can have foreknowledge of the nature and character of questions raised.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You get a list of them.10000Mr SPEAKER—Having said that, I share part of his prejudice that, over the last few years—since the honourable member for Watson and others came into prominence in this place—there have been far too many structured questions and far too few spontaneous questions. But that is a matter entirely within the province of both sides of the chamber, and it is—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Why don't you tell them that you don't want them?10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Watson!Mr Melham interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Banks will restrain himself. There is no way that I can see that we can urge—other than by admonition—the adoption of the practice that the honourable member for Lowe has suggested. It certainly would make a far better question time, I think, if we had the old practice where many members on both sides rose and it was left for the Speaker to give the call to those who had asked the fewest questions.K26LATHAMMr Latham—That is how Churchill would have done it.10000Mr SPEAKER—If the honourable member for Werriwa and everybody would desist, I could respond. It would be a lot better if they acted in that way, but I do not intend to conduct an inquiry.Personal Explanations463015:47:004630Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I claim to have been misrepresented in the comments made by the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit), who mentioned `parrot-like fashion'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dawson will proceed but she can only identify where she has been personally misrepresented.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Members prepare their own questions, which is well known. This is simply an invalid statement and it is inaccurate.4630Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—With your indulgence before I table the papers, we have actually had a lot more backbench questions in the last 12 months than has been the case for many years. What is interesting is that you do not have any backbench questions from the Labor Party. Every question time is structured.Documents46304630Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—A paper is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard .The schedule read as follows—Treaty—Bilateral with national interest analysis —Agreement on Mutual Recognition in relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings, between Australia and the European Community—Revised version.4630Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present a paper on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Opposition to the placement of a parallel runway at Brisbane airport and request that details of flight paths for the planned runway be released (Mr Bevis, 1116 petitioners). Matters of Public Importance4631463110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to act to ensure the job security of the workers at Burnie.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:49:004631Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Today's announcement that the Amcor pulp mill in Burnie will close by the end of the year is yet another savage blow to the economy of north-west Tasmania. And what do we see? We see the government not only ignoring their plight but also scurrying out of the chamber.The closure will mean the loss of at least 200 jobs directly associated with the mill and many others in the north-west community. The decision to import pulp rather than to produce it at Burnie is a harsh and callous act against the mill workers and their families, who have acted loyally for the company and for their region. Over the last few years these people have done everything asked of them to lift the efficiency of the mill—to cooperate with the management, to work as a team—and yet they find out about their redundancy by a leak in a newspaper. When they turned up at the meeting today to be given the news directly, they were given no detailed information as to what was involved or what their future could hold. The closure of this mill will further worsen our already deteriorating current account.We fixed a regional forest agreement for Tasmania and established that area which could be logged. What this closure does is to move away from processing that which is logged so that more will now go out as woodchips. How can that logic be understood? It is not only a hit to the workers themselves—because they have no future—but also completely contrary to the direction in which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) today said he was trying to head the nation—that is, value added activity. This is reversing the direction. It is going back to woodchip exports.What is the government doing about this? Nothing to date. Today's announcement of the intended closure has seen the government lift not one finger to try to stop it. We now know from the decision today that this closure will not occur until October. Given that the government has done nothing to date, it at least has the opportunity now to do something between this announcement and October to try to preserve and secure those jobs which otherwise will be lost in Burnie. The Prime Minister must personally intervene. His member of parliament for that seat has been totally ineffective. The acting minister for industry, Mr Truss, has ended up insulting the workers and blaming them for their own fate. And where is the real Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore)? He has gone to Paris. There are a few casinos in Paris. But he will not go to Burnie to save the workers or their future.This requires the Prime Minister to personally intervene. He should telephone Amcor's chair, Stan Wallis, and talk about what is needed to safeguard the jobs of the Burnie workers. He should go himself to Burnie immediately to see first-hand the problems facing the region and to meet the workers and the management of the mill. His government must develop a comprehensive industry development strategy for that industry based on the forest agreements; not just secure a forest agreement—which was the legacy that Labor left—but actually intertwine it with an industry development strategy that drives value adding. That is what this government should be doing. He also should be talking to Amcor about alternative investment opportunities in the Burnie region based upon such a strategy. That is what that government should be doing. It is what Labor would have been doing well before now.Again we are saying to the government: we will cooperate in talking with the work force, talking with the region, about what we can do collectively to secure an expansion, not a decline, in the region. But this is a government that turns its back on any suggestion of bipartisan approaches to industry policy and turns its back on getting involved in any activity that can secure the future of workers. In short, the Prime Minister has to involve himself. He needs to lead. That is what he claims to be: the leader of the nation. But he cannot lead on this issue because he has got no interest in doing so.Yesterday, in question time, the opposition called on the Prime Minister, before this announcement was made today to the Burnie workers, to actually telephone Stan Wallis, the chair of that company. We know that he has the telephone number of Stan Wallis because it is Stan Wallis who is always appearing whenever the Prime Minister needs to be bolstered on the call for tax reform. It is Stan Wallis who says, `Take the taxes off business and shift them to the punters, shift them to the workers,' and, `Prime Minister, we are behind you all the way.'But can the Prime Minister have the simple conversation with Stan Wallis about securing the jobs of the workers, the people who without jobs will not be paying any tax because they will be unemployed? That is the question and the issue that the Prime Minister should be engaging himself in. He refused to answer that yesterday in the parliament, so I take it he has not made that call. He refused to say whether he would make it. He refused to say again today whether he would even visit the mill.Who is he sending down? His Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman). Why would you be sending the Minister for Social Security if it was not to look at the circumstances of unemployment benefits? Why not send the minister for industry? Why not send the person sitting at the table deputising for the minister for industry, who has gone to Paris, Minister `Blackjack' Moore who would not go to Newcastle when the Newcastle works closed but went to the opening of the casino? Now he has gone to Paris. He is putting baguettes before Burnie because he does not care about them. Where are you as acting minister? You get up and insult the work force in this place.We also had, in the context of the BHP closure, the Prime Minister offering to go to Newcastle `soon'. Soon? Do you know where he had to go before he went to Newcastle? To the Second Test at Lords! He could not even drag himself to that place he loves to go, that same motel room this ordinary Prime Minister has been going to for the past 15 years at Hawks Nest. Do you know where Newcastle is, Prime Minister? It is the smokestacks a bit further south from Hawks Nest. This is where the Prime Minister was. He could not go to Newcastle, but he could go to the test at Lords. And it was a wash-out! What he is now presiding over is a wipe-out in terms of Burnie. What we have got here is another case of the Newcastle syndrome. He will not confront the workers that he has abandoned.But he has made a call over the dispute, we understand. He has telephoned Premier Rundle with an offer of $3 million from the Natural Heritage Fund. What are we going to do: have parks and walkways created? That is cold comfort for the sacked Burnie workers. Three million dollars—this is the offer out of the Natural Heritage Fund. He is not even prepared to look realistically at a reconstruction package which we forced him to embrace, together with Bob Carr in New South Wales, in relation to the Newcastle closure. This is a Prime Minister who is not even consistent.What we have got, if the Minister for Social Security is going down there and if he has rung Premier Rundle to offer him some funds from the Natural Heritage Trust Fund, is an admission of defeat—an admission that he is not prepared to do anything to stop the sackings. All he can do is come in after the event shaking his head, twitching his shoulder and say, `There is nothing that could have been done.'Do not expect an apology from this Prime Minister. Do not expect an appearance. He does not care. `Sorry' is not in his dictionary. One look at the Prime Minister's past involvement with the Burnie mill would give you no hope for believing that he was on the workers' side. After all, in the 1992 dispute, he was the one unctuously in this parliament saying that government should keep out of industrial relations but privately telling Peter Wade of North Broken Hill, who then owned the mill down there, `Go your hardest.' He even got himself thrown out of the parliament because of his passion and belief in saying that the government should be involved in sacking workers.What about the acting minister at the table, Mr Truss, the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, the minister representing the minister for industry? The threat of the mill and its closure was raised with him on 30 January this year. He was down there in Burnie and, according to a report in the Advocate at the time, he said `he did not believe the mills were near closing; if and when they were, his only commitment was that the government would look at the situation "in the light of events at that time."' Those events are now occurring, Minister. What are you doing? Amcor proposes to close this mill in October. It needs more than you looking at the situation; it requires some action—a concrete plan.But, instead, what did we get from you? You launched a vitriolic attack on the workers at risk of losing their jobs by blaming them. The headline that you got in the paper down there was `Minister slams doomed workers'. A shameful headline. Let us hear what you said. This is from the Hansard of yesterday. This is what the minister at the table, Mr Truss, said:But let us look at the core of the problem. Many of the problems of that plant and indeed other manufacturing industries in Australia can fairly go back to the industrial relations practices of the Labor government . . . . . . . . . . . .Indeed some of the things that were going on in that plant made the MUA look like a work gang.This is what you said. There were people in this chamber who saw the member for Braddon (Mr Miles) nodding and even saying, `Too right!' in response to that assertion by you. This is what you believe. You believe that the company has untrammelled rights to do what it likes, to keep the workers in the dark and not consult them, then you come along and blame the workers. You did not lift a hand. It would seem from today's answers in the parliament—including those of the Prime Minister—that you are not prepared to lift a hand to do anything for them.The member for Braddon must be one of the most pathetic members in this chamber in terms of representing his constituency. The Prime Minister boasted yesterday that the member had spent a large part of yesterday morning in Melbourne meeting senior Amcor executives trying to persuade them to delay the closure. He was not trying to safeguard the workers' jobs; he was merely trying to delay the closure. Again, he was simply accepting defeat. He was not fighting for their survival, not fighting for a growth strategy, but running up the white flag. The member for Braddon spoke on ABC radio this morning. This is a beauty—this is how good he is at representing his constituents. He said:After my meeting with the company yesterday I believe that they are going to go ahead with closing down the pulp mill section.It must have been some fantastic set of representations. Here he is. He makes a special rush to Melbourne. He suggests to them, `Don't stop closing. Let's sit down and talk, but just delay it,' and they even knock him back on that!What is the point of having him? Why not get someone like Sid Sidebottom down there who can actually represent these workers; someone who has got a commitment to their future and to that of the region? Sid Sidebottom, if you have not heard it before, Minister, will be the one hounding you. He will be the one reminding those workers of your callous disregard, your propensity to blame them rather than find solutions. He is the person we need in this chamber to represent the workers of Braddon. They are not getting it from the current member.When the member for Braddon was asked what the company's response was to his request that the closure should only occur within 18 months, he said:Well they were not impressed with that idea.Here he is. He has run up the white flag. He put forward a suggestion for delay and he could not score on either proposition. In those circumstances, if you think you are going to be knocked back you at least go in and have a fight. You go in and represent your constituency. You do not run up the white flag, as this member has done.Chris Miles, the member for Braddon, is not the person we want representing Burnie in this place. The local mayor does not want him—the local mayor whom the Prime Minister wanted to quote today. He said:Well, I think there has been a lot of concern with the member of parliament up here, Chris Miles, that Chris hasn't done very much for the area, considering his position as a parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.The Mayor of Burnie wants Chris Miles out.What we want is a government committed to securing these jobs, a government prepared to work in partnership with industry and the work force—a work force that has demonstrated its willingness and preparedness to embrace change. But we want a strategy that gives us value adding, a strategy that gives a future for the region, a strategy that a government should be behind—but this one will not get behind such a strategy. (Time expired)16:04:004634Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—At last we have the matter of public importance—the one that Labor care so passionately about that yesterday they forgot to put it in. They care so much about the workers of Tasmania that they forgot to get their MPI in. They forgot about it. They care so little about the situation in Burnie that, when they had an opportunity to raise it in the parliament, they simply forgot. The member for Hotham (Mr Crean) did not get around to it. Today in question time we saw the member for Lyons (Mr Adams) bouncing up trying to get a question on this subject to demonstrate Labor's concern. But he was always interrupted by other people—his mates in the front got in the way because they had other matters that were more important to them.The workers of Tasmania rated last in the Labor Party's questions today. They have no concern whatever about dealing effectively with these issues or asking questions about the facts. It took this side of the House to have the matter raised in question time today so the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) could respond in a positive and sympathetic way to the concerns of the workers in Burnie. He indicated the government's determination to address the direct and immediate issues that are associated with the lifestyle and the future of the workers at that plant and indeed the people of Burnie. But more comprehensively the government will put in place a plan for the future of northern Tasmania; a plan that we would not have had to put in place had it not been for the neglect of this industry over many years by those opposite.I referred yesterday in the House to unsatisfactory work practices in this plant and indeed in many other workplaces around Australia—workplaces that were aided, abetted and supported by the member for Hotham when he was ACTU president. He agreed with and supported workers in work practices they knew were unsustainable. Only this morning one of the union representatives acknowledged that those days have to be behind us. Those days must be behind us. In fairness to the workers, the employees at that plant and the management, over the last couple of years they have worked hard to improve their productivity. They looked at the sorts of practices that were destroying the profitability of their company and therefore also their own jobs, and they were willing to work systematically towards improving the profitability of their company.I said in my answer yesterday—which I might add was acknowledged in the Davenport Advocate and many other Tasmanian papers but sadly not in the Hobart Mercury—that the company should acknowledge the contribution that has been made by workers and seek to find solutions to the problems which would secure their employment. The Hobart Mercury called my office today and acknowledged that that headline in the paper was a misrepresentation of the substance of my answer to the question. I find it most disappointing that a Tasmanian newspaper would seek to use the jobs of workers of Tasmania in such a political way.If we look back at the root cause of the problems that have been confronting the workers of northern Tasmania, I think the Prime Minister summed up the problems quite admirably on a number of occasions when he referred to the disgraceful deal done by the ALP and the Greens in Tasmania to destroy the Wesley Vale pulp mill project. Had that project proceeded, the workers of Burnie today would be working in one of the most modern state-of-the-art pulp plants in the world. Their jobs would not be at risk. Their jobs would be secure. They would be providing pulp to an expanding Australian paper industry that would have the capacity to export around the world. Instead of our paper industry declining and suffering serious competition, it would have had the opportunity to deliver best practice technology and meaningful and lasting jobs for northern Tasmanian workers.The Labor Party, when confronted with this opportunity for one of the biggest projects in Australian history, preferred to do a deal with Christine Milne and the Greens to secure preferences. The honourable member for Hotham was one of those who wanted the Green preferences because he was about to run for parliament for the first time in Melbourne. He preferred Green preferences to the jobs of the workers of northern Tasmania. In their determination to try to hang onto government, Senator Richardson and Mr Hawke, with the leadership no doubt in support of the member for Hotham and others, did a deal to wreck this project, to destroy the long-term viability of the paper industry of northern Tasmania. The member for Hotham preferred Green preferences in Melbourne to the jobs of the workers of Burnie in northern Tasmania.The member for Hotham a decade ago was prepared to back unsatisfactory work practices which he must have known were putting at risk the jobs of the people in this plant and in other plants around Australia. He preferred to allow those sorts of rorts to continue rather than confront the productivity improvements which were always going to be essential if we were to have a modern and progressive paper industry in this country. The workers of that plant in northern Tasmania know that now. They know they have a contribution to make towards securing their jobs. They know, as do the paper workers in Maryvale, Shoalhaven and a whole stack of other places, that they must work with their management to ensure that their industry is secure, that their jobs remain viable.Sadly, that realisation came far too late for the member for Hotham. It came far too late for the Labor Party. In 13 years they did nothing to address these critical productivity issues, and sadly the workers of that paper mill in Burnie are now paying the price for that indolence. Labor failed to do anything to secure the kind of industrial relations climate that was necessary, the kind of investment climate that would have been essential to secure the necessary investment to keep this plant operating effectively and to secure the future of the paper industry for Australia. Sadly, too much damage was done under 13 years of Labor for the workers of TasPEAC and others to correct that damage in the last couple of years.Sadly, those sorts of things have left the paper mill and the management of Amcor with the view that this mill can no longer continue to operate profitably. I am very disappointed that they have made that decision. I believe that considerable progress was being made to improve the productivity of the plant. It is true, as the company has indicated, that the plant is now quite old. In fact, it is more than 60 years old. It was working with outdated technology. There was a plan to get rid of that outdated technology to build a new mill of world class standard at Wesley Vale. Labor destroyed that possibility. Labor did a deal with the Greens to destroy that possibility. The inevitable consequence of that was that a small, inefficient, old, outdated technology plant at Burnie was put at risk and the jobs of those workers were put at risk.The company has been spending a considerable amount of money at Burnie and Wesley Vale—its other plant—to try to update the technology to make that plant competitive. But, ultimately, I am sure all will acknowledge that the company can only continue to make investments if they believe those investments are likely to be profitable. They also need to protect their investments in other parts of Australia. The big new plant at Maryvale will obviously substantially increase their production capability. They also have a plant at Shoalhaven that produces speciality papers which have a particular place in the market.The key thing is that the company, in making this announcement, has reaffirmed its commitments to producing base paper at Burnie and in other places around Australia. Its coated and film coated offset production at Wesley Vale will continue, and it is investing $49 million to increase the company's 20 per cent share of the coated paper market. So there is still a commitment to paper making in Australia. I think we have that commitment only because of the policies of this government. If Labor's antiquated anti-dumping mechanisms were still in place, if the old measures introduced by the previous government which failed dismally to provide the sort of protection that the Australian paper industry needed from unfair and subsidised products were still in place, if there was not in sight a likelihood that reforming legislation would soon go through the parliament to give us the fastest and fairest anti-dumping mechanisms in the world, if the government had not made that commitment, I doubt whether we would see this long-term involvement by Amcor in the paper making industry in Australia.They sought this protection from me and from the government, and we are providing it. The old measures—the slow cumbersome measures, the anti-dumping measures that Labor left in place, that Labor introduced in the first place but failed to do anything about, that the member for Hotham occasionally goes to Tasmania to criticise but never acknowledges he was a party to putting them in place in the first place and did nothing about correcting in his term in government—left us with the residue of his failed anti-dumping protection measures.We have acted spontaneously and quickly to bring those measures into place. We have responded to the needs of that industry and our action has been warmly appreciated not just by Amcor, the paper investors and the manufacturing industry but also by the workers of northern Tasmania. If you would like me to, I would be happy to produce letters from the unions and the workers of northern Tasmania congratulating me and the government on our actions in introducing these measures.But it is not just that alone. If you look at the kind of economic climate that Labor had left the major investors in which to make decisions about whether they should expand their operations in Australia, you will see where Labor really failed Australian industry for 13 years. Under Labor, business investment declined to its lowest level on record, and that was a clear demonstration of the failure of their policies. Under Labor, Australian productivity improvement was just 0.9 per cent per year—half the world average for this century. Under Labor, business expenditure on R&D as a share of GDP was 25 per cent lower than the OECD average. Under Labor, the manufacturing trade deficit blew out from $7.7 billion in 1982 to $27.5 billion in 1995. Under Labor, the manufacturing sector shed some 200,000 jobs.Contrast that to what has happened under this government: there has been jobs growth—even in northern Tasmania, which we acknowledge has gone through some difficult times. The Prime Minister mentioned in question time today that nearly 3,000 new jobs were created in the Mersey-Lyell region. That is indeed a record of achievement—the unemployment rate substantially lower than when Labor left office. This government has indeed been working hard, in cooperation with the paper manufacturing industry and indeed industry throughout Australia, to try to create the kind of environment which encourages investment and which rewards those who in this country have the imagination to ensure that our industry is able to grow and expand, to provide jobs for Australians, to boost our exports and to replace some of the products that have been coming into this country.Only under a coalition government would this sort of economic turnaround be possible. Only under a coalition government can you achieve the industrial relations reform, the economic reform. Only under a coalition government can you achieve the sort of measures that are necessary to protect Australian industry from unfair dumping or unfair subsidisation. Only under this government can you have the kind of turnaround that establishes the sort of environment that encourages investment in the paper industry.We will not rush off and do secret deals with the Greens to knock off projects just to gain a few preferences. The Greens, I gather, are at it again. There are a number of major new projects being proposed for northern Tasmania and the Greens are once again threatening to block them. Will Labor once again do a secret deal with the Greens, as they regularly do in Queensland prior to the state elections—secret deals that we learn about months later—to try to extract Green preferences?The Labor Party were prepared to trade the jobs of northern Tasmanians for a few Green preferences. They are now prepared to trade the economic welfare of the people of Burnie in Tasmania for a few cheap political points. The member for Hotham will rush down and criticise and give plenty of advice from the side, but the member for Braddon (Mr Miles) has been in there fighting for his industry, effectively representing it and ensuring that this government will respond positively and effectively to the problems confronting Tasmanian workers to ensure that that industry prospers in the future. (Time expired)16:19:004637Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It is very interesting that the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), who has just spoken, did not give us one point on what this government is going to do for Burnie—not one point on how we can achieve anything to assist Burnie. After being advised that Australian Paper have decided to close the pulp mill, which is a part of the Burnie operation in north-west Tasmania, they have also advised that the two paper machines at Burnie will stay and the Wesley Vale mill will continue its operation.This closure is another terrible blow for Tasmania. Once these jobs go from the pulp works at Amcor, it will take Burnie's unemployment rate from 10.6 per cent to well over 13 per cent. This has been one of the highest in the country and will be extremely difficult for the Burnie people. Burnie already has great difficulty in finding employment for much of its population, since many other businesses in this region have closed since this government has been in power.Not only have 180 jobs been lost here at the mill but there will also be support employees lost, maintenance employees lost and job losses for those who supply the wood to the mill and those in the community whose jobs are tied up with the production of pulp. This is an enormous impact in this very close-knit community—one that has over 35 per cent youth unemployment.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—How much?BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—There is over 35 per cent youth unemployment throughout the Burnie municipality. Some of the blame has to lie at the feet of the federal minister for customs, Warren Truss, for taking such an inordinately long time to deal with the anti-dumping legislation. The federal member for Braddon (Mr Miles) has done very little to make sure that the work has been done to cope with the ability of the businesses there to compete. These ministers have the hide to blame the workers for the closures—and that really angers me. They have attacked the workers there for the last 20 years, saying, `It's your fault. If you are unemployed now, it's your fault.' Blame the victim; it is a typical tactic started by Malcolm Fraser back in the 1970s.It is this government's incompetence that has caused the company to close its doors, and it hangs around this government's neck. The federal government has failed Tasmania. It fails to provide a safety net when these disasters happen and it failed to assist Tasmania in its last budget. The state is suffering enormous difficulties and the federal government has written us off, as it did in its last budget.There are times when decisions need to be made swiftly and this is one of them. The simple fact that Burnie has been under threat for some time from the expense of making paper in an ageing mill versus the new up-to-date technology at Maryvale has been too difficult for the company to overcome. Some assistance should have been forthcoming from the government. The loss of research and development funds has made companies look at ways of reducing costs by closing plants rather than ways in which plants could be used in further downstream processing or upgrading of processing. That is a product of this government.The Maryvale mill could have been at Burnie if there had been incentives when the company was making those sorts of decisions. If the member for Braddon had got stuck in there, he might have achieved that.We have had long delays in getting the regional forest agreements signed. The Labor Party had it almost finished in 1995, yet it was only signed off by the federal government late last year. There still has not been the necessary legislation—pointing to the government—to underpin the RFA process. The RFA process allowed us to build an industry plan to utilise forestry in developing value added products, creating more jobs and export from our forest industries. But this government has not sought to develop an industry plan or long-term strategy to ensure that this industry can be one of the leaders in the world. They are more interested in getting the raw product out of the state either as chips or as whole logs and as soon as possible. No value adding has been done—unless you consider chipping to be value adding.The last Labor government had an industry plan—the wood and paper industry strategy. They had an overall philosophy to support the development of a forest industry as a major sunrise industry for Tasmania, to compete on world terms with forest practices and timber development. This has all gone out the window since this government has been in power. The government has failed to drive this agenda. It has said that it would have legislation in parliament by 30 June this year to underpin the RFA. We have not seen any detail of this and 30 June is fast approaching. Will it be like the signing off of the RFA, with a two-year wait and dozens of local people still waiting to receive some sort of assistance because of the terms of the RFA? Legislation is needed to drive the industry development in Australia. We cannot afford this `quarry and export at all costs' mentality that afflicts this government. We need jobs, we need research and we need a strategy plan to follow in order to build and encourage other industries to develop.Amcor is very conscious of the difficulties this decision will cause Burnie. They have told me that they are accelerating the launch of their new film-coated offset grades to be produced in Tasmania and they are proceeding with the commissioning of the paper coated upgrade at Wesley Vale, supported by the supply of base sheet from Burnie. So there is a need to put in place incentives to make them remain in Tasmania and also to assist in the continuation of the Wesley Vale mill. The further development of the RFA is one way of dealing with this.I call upon this government to take some specific action, not just mouth the words we heard from the minister. I call upon this government to compensate the people of Burnie by supporting in kind the magnesium site mine being proposed by Crest Resources Australia so that they are assisted to put this processing plant in Burnie rather than on the mainland. The federal government will need to help the state to ensure it can carry out the necessary approvals and environmental studies in the shortest time possible. I call upon them to immediately start negotiations and clear the way for the company to invest in Burnie.I also ask the federal government to keep discussions going with Amcor to ensure that they do not pull out of Burnie. These jobs are vital for the north west and the government's actions should not be put in the way to jeopardise these industries. By this I mean the anti-dumping legislation must be quickly finalised and incentives developed through a long-term strategy for the forestry industry in Tasmania.We also need to know whether there is anything that can be done to utilise the plant which would otherwise remain idle. Can it be used for something else besides pulp? What are the options for manufacturing pulp besides going into fine paper? What work has been done on this? The federal government ought to be asking those sorts of questions and seeking to look for other avenues. This is what the member for Braddon should have done ages ago and that is what he should do now. It is time to act. Something has to be done.The Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, Mr Truss, today slammed the workers of the past 20 or 30 years at this mill, the people who are now retired and live in Burnie and surrounding districts. They should all feel pretty well kicked by this minister who said it was their fault that the mill has closed. He ought to apologise to them. He did not mention that the industrial relations environment before 1993 had a little bit to do with management and that that is why there was some disruption taking place—we remember that dispute. He did not bother saying that at the other end of my electorate down on the Derwent River, ANM's management went down a totally different path, had a totally different restructuring process and achieved major results.The workers in this mill have set up a consultative process. They have a health and safety program which has reduced accidents. Since 1993, 600 jobs have gone, the maintenance contract has been settled and signed, productivity has increased and workers have worked together on the anti-dumping situation. There has been a lot of work done since 1993, but a part of this mill is still going to go. A lot more work could have been done and the member for Braddon stands condemned for not defending the mill workers over the last 20 or 30 years who now live in his electorate. They have been attacked by Warren Truss in a very unfair and unjust way. He should have put a statement out defending those workers. (Time expired)16:27:004639Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—Today is a day of shame for the Labor Party. They stand absolutely naked on this issue, and I can tell you they are totally exposed on this issue. Political nudity by the Labor Party in this case cuts a very tragic figure in Burnie. Let us go back to the genesis of what is happening in Burnie today. I put this on a very square footing in regard to the situation that occurred in 1989. We have all accepted that the Wesley Vale mill went down the tube—KP6DARGAVELMr Dargavel—We are in 1998 today, Sunshine.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—Yes, I will come to that. I suggest you stay and listen. You live in Canberra and you would not understand a worker if you came across him. You would not know what it is to get dirt under your fingernails and you would not know what it is to get grease in your hair. But I understand the Burnie mill workers and I know exactly what it takes to do hard work.Let us go back to the details of this issue. It was the Labor Party which prevented new technology coming into this industry in Tasmania. They prevented it. This is what Graham Richardson said about the mill going down on 8 September 1989 in a letter to me:There is absolutely no reason for me to apologise to anyone over the Government's handling of the Wesley Vale proposal. Rather, I am proud to be part of a Government which is prepared to take . . . decisions when proposed developments clearly threaten the environment.Let us have a look at the record. I quote what the CSIR0 scientists said on 1 August 1990. The pre-eminent scientists in Australia said that it was not about the environment; there was not a factor in regard to the environment. I will quote both of them. Chris Fandry said:What the CSIR0 report in relation to the Wesley Vale project says is that there is no known scientific evidence—none at all—. . . that there will be any long term detrimental effect of pulp mills.What did Bob Johannes, a senior CSIR0 scientist, say on the same day? He said:. . . I reiterate, we have no scientific evidence to suggest that there will be any known environmental impact or effect on fish.Who did we have in here today saying it was going to affect the fish? The former President of the Australian Labor Party—trying to keep that line going. Here we have the top scientists in Australia totally rejecting that there was any scientific evidence to do away with new technology in the pulp mills in Tasmania. Yet Graham Richardson and the Labor Party were proud to do a deal with the Greens to scuttle new technology in Wesley Vale. Therefore, today we have this announcement by Amcor of the loss of 150 jobs, but it will not be that: it will be about 280 and will flow on to about 500. This is in industry that has a history of 60 years. Preparation should have been made for investment by companies to make sure there was money there for a new mill.Quite contrary to what the Labor Party is saying here today, I have been in the forefront of people wanting a new technology mill in northern Tasmania. I put it to Amcor even early on Tuesday morning of this week that they should consider building a new quality mill in that area. Again they rejected it. Of course, the unions now are getting on the coat-tails of that comment to say that they are out there fighting for a new industry in this area. Yes—coming after my representation to the mill. There is nobody in this parliament who has fought more for the forest industries through thick and thin so that the workers in Burnie and north-west Tasmania would have jobs. For the Labor Party to come in here and talk about being supportive of the mill workers in Burnie is absolute codswallop. There is no substance to their arguments at all.We have seen the record of their dealing with the Greens to skittle new technology. They did not want new technology. No, they just wanted a few votes in Sydney and Melbourne. That is what they were about. In Tasmania under their administration during their 13 years there were 17 inquiries into Tasmania—and no outcomes at all. There were the Helsham inquiry, the Lemonthyme national estate and the 1986 memorandum of understanding with the state government. What did they do with that? They walked away from that to buy votes from the Greens. What did they do in 1989? We know about the Wesley Vale mill debacle. Labor sent that down the tube. Then in 1992 they decided they would actually do something with the regional forestry agreement. By 1996 there was not even one agreement signed—not even one, four years on.ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—They were going to do it.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—Yes, in the 14th or 15th year. There were 13 years of Labor and nothing was done with the regional forestry agreement. It got into a debate there with Minister Beddall. Keating, of course, opposed what he was doing. Then they said, `We are going to take certain coupes out of Tasmania.' When I went to the grid and had look at what they were talking about, do you know where those forest coupes were? They were out in Bass Strait. That is how much interest they had in Tasmania and the mill workers.What have we done? This is the record in two years. The degraded-forest licences were put into place. The amount of woodchips now being produced in the region behind Burnie has gone from 450,000 to 700,000 tonnes. That created 30 jobs and saved 110 jobs in the Burnie region. When it comes to the regional forestry agreement, this is going to create 1,000 new jobs. Under Labor we were shedding jobs in the forest industries. Under Labor in 1992 even the Burnie mill shed jobs, going from 1,324 down to less than 500. Seven hundred in one year went under Labor out of the Burnie mill. What have they got to say about that? Not one word, of course.They come in here today in such an unctuous mood and do not actually suggest one dollar of support to Burnie—not one dollar, not one proposal. Their idea is to throw money at these projects and that will sort it out. That is what the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) would do, and we would have another DuPont, I suppose. They threw $60 million into Victoria and that project got closed down. They wasted $60 million. Throw money at it and get the political monkey off our back but don't care about the workers—that is Labor's approach. Of course, the DuPont project went down the tube.I am saying to the company in Burnie that they ought to be giving a lot more time for the closure of this mill, and it is outrageous that they are closing it three months before Christmas. How outrageous! They should be making sure that these people have jobs past Christmas.Opposition members interjecting—BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—The Labor Party have done nothing. There is no record whatsoever in regard to the Labor Party on this particular issue. There should be retraining programs for these people, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has taken up my suggestion about having ministers go down to the electorate. We will listen to the mill workers down there. Remember, the Labor Party did not suggest one dollar of help to the Burnie people today—not one dollar—just unctuous words and yapping about the issue and not really addressing the needs of the Burnie pulp mill. If Labor had been in government, there is no way that they would have been able to do anything. They had a $10 billion deficit and it would have prevented them from doing anything. But our government has got rid of that deficit and we are in a position to do things which will benefit Australia.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Do it then.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—We will do it in our time, not in the Labor Party's time. Labor's approach is deficit, debt and high interest rates.Opposition members interjecting—BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—Yes, we will go down there and talk with the families of that community and listen to their needs and—8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—Sympathy cards.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—No, there will be a package for Braddon; I can assure you of that. We will listen very intently on Friday morning. (Time expired)16:40:004641Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—Once again we see political grandstanding in this House with neither party having anything to congratulate itself on. I am interested in this debate because I live in the midst of the biggest dry sclerophyll forest in the world, from which we hope we can develop exports to the value of $300 million. I hope that can proceed very shortly, with high value added products.To go back to Wesley Vale, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Labor Party pandered to the Greens. There was concern about the fisheries but, without the advent of the atomic spectrum analysis machine, it would have been impossible to pick up any of the elements they said were going to be detrimental, because they are in such minute quantities. It simply was a bogus argument from the start, and it is quite clear that the Labor Party was pandering to Richardson, who was in turn pandering to the Greens. It is my view that Richardson is second only to Keating in the damage he has done to the Labor Party.This is an industry of enormous value to Australia. It is an industry that should be exporting $4 billion worth of paper product and not importing. When Labor closed down the industry in this country they drove it off to South-East Asia, where it has been burning ever since. They drove it off to countries where there is no control whatsoever—no semblance of management. The truth is that not one square inch of forest has been lost to forestry in this country. It has overwhelmingly been lost to farming and to rural sprawl. That is where the forests went, and that has to be considered.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—There have been no species lost.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—In terms of species lost, that certainly has not occurred in forestry. In fact, in Western Australia they are planting 25,000 hectares a year. Whereas it took 50 years to plant the first 100,000 hectares, it will now be done in four years, and it is going to be very successful. The truth is that the forest agreements between the states and the Commonwealth are a nonsense. This is an area where the Commonwealth should get right out because it has no expertise. It is being driven by zealots with other agendas. The expertise in forests resides with the states, and Tasmania had a very good record in forest management.When the Labor Party was busy pandering to the Greens and closing down those forests in Tasmania, we were assured that workers need not worry because there would be jobs for them in tourism. You simply cannot transfer blue-collar workers to the tourist industry. But, in any case, once they had got rid of that industry, the Greens turned on the tourist industry. Their agenda was simply to stop anything happening in Tasmania and in forests in Australia generally.There was talk of anti-dumping, and it makes me sick. The anti-dumping position of this government is no better than that of the previous government and it is no good at all. We need a much quicker response and we need governments that look after the interests of our people, not after the interests of multinationals. I know this is a digression but it happens everywhere. It happens in the forest industry.In terms of pig imports into Australia, the pig is not coming from Canada; it is coming from ConAgra in the United States. It goes to ConAgra plants in Canada and comes to ConAgra agents in Australia. The government is backing multinationals against the interests of Australians. It is happening in the timber industry too, and for the government to look after the interests of people in Australia is long overdue.But what is to be done? We cannot go on blaming each other. Something has to be done for Tasmania. I think Tasmania has been neglected. The truth is that without a return to a manufacturing industry there is no future for Tasmania, nor is there any future for Melbourne—for a casino-led recovery will not last forever—and there is no future for South Australia.We get a lot of people from Tasmania, particularly from the Burnie area, coming to the electorate of Kalgoorlie seeking work. They are very welcome. If we could somehow reduce the flow of New Zealanders, we could take more Tasmanians. Let us just consider this: if Tasmania were to be given subsidies equal to those provided to the Northern Territory, you could pay for a new mill. There would certainly be more than enough money there to pay off a mill. It is quite clear that in the future we are going to be a big player in the paper industry. It would not be a waste of money if the government were to get involved in this. It is long overdue that Tasmania got some of the consideration that is heaped onto and poured into the Northern Territory.The situation will not be helped by what has been said by either party. I think the company has been very neglectful. It clearly has not put much store by the chaos that is going to occur. This problem has not just arisen for the company; it must have seen it coming, and I think it should have made provisions beforehand. But governments have to pick up very often where the private sector fails. I think the government should give real consideration to doing something constructive for Tasmania.We have had the minister who was previously at the table—the Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles)—babbling about industrial relations and other factors. The truth is they are largely irrelevant. We need a regime where Australian industry can thrive. It will not thrive under a policy of economic rationalism. It simply cannot, because economic rationalism is not an economic policy; it is a political ideology. It is the ideology of big business, mainly American big businesses that control world trade. While the Labor Party and the government are hooked on this myth there can be no real hope.We, as Australians, cannot abide a situation where Tasmania, one of our earliest areas of colonisation, is allowed to wither on the vine. For those of us who have been to Tasmania, it is very sad to see the depressed areas of the state. I think governments have an absolute responsibility to take Tasmania with us, not to abandon it. I believe that every effort should be made by whatever means necessary to get industries into Tasmania.I suspect there is a lot of money to be made by value-adding timber in Tasmania just as there is in the Goldfields. We are looking now at markets in Europe for speciality timbers. There is a big market there for parquetry. I suspect that eucalyptus globulus would fetch far more money as a hardwood flooring in Europe and North America than it does as pulp. We now have the techniques for drying it satisfactorily. Indeed, we import it into Australia as Chilean oak. If we were to spend money on marketing this, I am sure we could find markets for it in Europe, where there is a preference for light-coloured timber.Many of the other Tasmanian timbers would find ready markets in Europe. Just the hobby market alone—the woodturning market—is a vast market. In my looks at the forests in Tasmania I saw many timbers which should be exploited to those ends. Those are the things that we should do. We should be assisting people by very generous help, by whatever means is necessary, to make sure that we can get some value-adding into the timber in Tasmania. In conclusion, it gives me no pleasure to continue to rise in this House to point out that the policies of both sides have the same end consequences for the people.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Miscellaneous4643Motion (by Mr Andrew)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998Bills4643s1614643Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills4643r5394643Debate resumed.16:51:004643Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—As I was saying some three hours ago in respect of the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998 , the opposition will not be opposing the legislation but we do have some concerns about the way in which the government has broken yet another promise in respect of taxation.I just remind the House once again that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), when Leader of the Opposition, said that `there will be no increases in existing taxes' nor would there be an introduction of any new taxes under his government. Clearly this is a broken promise because the departure tax is being increased. It is being increased by $3 from $27 to $30. The justification which the government is using suggests that it is to meet additional costs associated with the transit of people and equipment for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. The measure, accordingly, is going to take effect from 1 July 1999.This is one of two sneaky issues which were introduced in the course of the budget of a couple of weeks ago. Both go hand in glove. The second was, of course, the introduction of a new visitor visa charge. That is breaking the promise again because a new tax has been introduced to complement this increase in the departure tax. We will be saying more about that particular element when we examine whether a disallowance motion will be introduced into this House in respect of that new visitor visa charge. I foreshadow that the opposition is giving serious consideration to that element now, but as we are concerned about the departure tax I will confine my comments specifically to that.In the budget of two weeks ago we saw the government stand in this place and triumphantly say that we have given $50 million extra to the Australian Tourism Commission to promote Australia overseas—specifically, $41 million to ATC to promote Australia in new and also tried and true markets for foreign tourists and $9 million to continue promotion for the 2000 Olympics. They stood in this place and said, and the Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson) has been out and about saying, `We actually listened to what people in the tourist industry were saying and we finally came to this conclusion'—a conclusion which the opposition had been putting forward for a number months, as had been the tourism task force and the Tourism Council of Australia, both peak organisations representing tourism interests in this country. The government have said that finally they listened.Late last year when the Asian economic crisis was first gathering momentum, it was suggested by those organisations to which I have referred that the first signs of trouble in Australia were being experienced in the tourist industry. As Christmas rolled around and we saw airlines such as Qantas and Ansett decide to no longer fly into Korea because there had been a 77 per cent drop in Korean tourists coming into this country and Asiana Airlines and Malaysian Airlines decide to no longer fly into Cairns, you would have thought that the penny would have dropped with this minister for tourism and with the Prime Minister and they would have found some money to put into the Australian tourism industry to enable it to promote Australia as a destination in new and emerging markets and to try to reinforce it in some of our old tried and true markets.The numbers coming from Asia dropped off. As I have said, in the case of Korea they simply collapsed. In the case of Japan, one of our best tourism markets, the last figures I have seen show something like a 17 per cent drop in the number of tourists coming here. As those markets dropped, the Prime Minister's response was, `We are not going to have any knee-jerk reaction in the way in which we'll respond to this crisis. And in the case of tourism they can simply switch markets. They can simply get out of Japan or Korea or South-East Asia. We will take the tourism dollars and switch markets and advertise in the UK, Europe or the United States.'Anybody who knows anything about marketing arrangements or the way in which budgets for organisations like the Australian Tourism Commission are set could not help but see the ridiculousness of those sorts of comments. You simply cannot switch the markets just like that. You simply cannot go in and say, `We'll take our dollars and we'll look at advertising to promote more into Europe and the United States than into our tried and true markets of Asia.' It was an issue that the tourism industry came and saw the minister about and knocked on the Prime Minister's door about, but continued to be rebuffed.If it had not been for pressure from those organisations and, dare I say, modestly, from the opposition, we may not have seen extra funds injected in this last budget to try to overcome those difficulties, because there is, regrettably, a belief in the Australian community—and it is certainly mirrored in the minds of the present minister for tourism and of the Prime Minister—that tourism does not create real jobs in this country. It is an abso lute disgrace that that view is around and that the people who purport to lead this nation do not accept that one in nine jobs in Australia now is in the tourism and hospitality area. It is a disgrace that people do not recognise that $16 billion annually is raised through export earnings due directly to tourists coming into this country and that $65 billion is contributed to the gross domestic product of Australia through the tourism and hospitality industry.There is unfortunately a view around that unless somebody is dressed in a blue singlet, safety boots and shorts they are not really a worker and they are not really in an industry that means something. This completely puts to one side the view that small business is dependent on tourism and that many of the organisations and businesses that are in tourism are small businesses. It completely puts to one side our friends in the Australian Customs Service, who play an integral role in the promotion of tourism into this country. It puts to one side all those airline employees, people who do the maintenance, bus drivers, chefs, front office receptionists, cleaners in hotels and people who run bungie jumping operations, yachts up on the Whitsunday Islands, cruises out to the Great Barrier Reef and operations at Uluru National Park. All of those people are contributing to the tourism infrastructure and employment of this nation. Therefore, it smacks somewhat strange to some of us that the government that would purport to say that it finally recognised that tourism is in a little bit of trouble is going to put $50 million—or more properly $41 million—into extra funding for the ATC.Members with a little bit of a memory can go back to the budget of two years ago, the first budget brought down by Peter Costello. He cut $18 million out of the budget for the Australian Tourism Commission. This is an industry which, as I have said, plays a significant role as an employer in this nation. Yet, $18 million was offered up as savings to the bottom line in the budget of two years ago. And belatedly we have seen $41 million being put back. As I have said, the Labor opposition and me specifically, as our spokesperson on tourism, absolutely welcome the fact that money is being put back. But there are, as ever, a couple of hooks in this.When you go to the budget papers—and I was making some mention of this a little earlier—and specifically Budget Paper No. 2, the 1998-99 budget measures, and look over the four years commencing with this financial year and going forward, you see that in 1998-99 it is expected that there will be a $10 million increase in the passenger movement charge, and for that read `departure tax', generated for the government. In 1999-2000, a $21 million increase in the departure tax will be generated and in the year 2000-01 a $23 million increase, climbing in the year 2001-02 to $24 million. This makes a grand total of $78 million extra that will be generated by this $3 increase in the departure tax.You reconcile these figures and you see that the government is saying: `We are going to put $41 million extra into promoting over those four years Australia as a tourist destination in new and emerging markets and to reinforce that view in other markets,' but the government is making $78 million over that same time. So clearly an additional contribution is being made by this increase in the departure tax. That increase is being offered up to the coffers of the government.And it gets worse. As I said a little earlier, the other side of this insidious approach to the Australian tourism industry is that the imposition of a new visitor visa charge of $50 per head in those countries where there is no electronic travel authority processing system is going to impact on our new and emerging markets. We had the Minister for Tourism, after he had been to Nagano, head into China, then on to India and then come home. When he came back, having met with tourism officials in those countries, he proudly announced to the Australian community, and particularly those in tourism, some very welcome news. He announced that China had granted Australia preferred destination status in terms of tourists.In a still fairly heavily planned economy, nations seek out that status, particularly from a tourism perspective. We went in and were actively lobbying to get that status so that we could take advantage of that new market, with the increasing affluence of China, particularly southern China, where the economy is booming. As China was prepared to let Chinese tourists come into overseas destinations we were actively out there seeking that status as a nation. And we got it. So what did we do to say thanks to the Chinese for that? We said: `When you come you are going to have to pay $50 now for a visa charge which was not there previously.' Then we said to them: `Oh, and by the way, when you go it is now going to cost you $30 instead of $27.'Some thanks to the Chinese government for giving us the status that we had been actively lobbying for. Some thanks it was to say to them: `Thanks very much, but by the way it is going to cost all of those people coming here.' If there is one thing this country does not need in times of economic crisis it is more disincentives in the tourism industry. It is bad enough that this government has imposed a 400 per cent increase in the reef tax in tropical Far North Queensland. It is bad enough that now we are going to see a $3 increase in the departure tax. But to also slug tourists coming into the place out of the new and emerging markets that we are trying to cultivate, like China and India, $50 a time for a visa fee which had never been there in the past is absolute nonsense.Is it any wonder that people like Bruce Baird, the Managing Director of the Tourism Council of Australia, is jumping up and down on behalf of his organisation about this, and has made representations to the minister? Is it any wonder that Mr Baird rightly is a touch put out because his mate in government, the Minister for Tourism, forgot to tell him about it? The Minister for Immigration (Mr Ruddock) forgot to tell him about it. They have dressed it up as a way they are supposedly keeping illegals out of Australia.To be fair, has anyone ever heard of anything more ridiculous than saying that putting a $50 visa charge on somebody who has the intention of coming here and then staying illegally is going to keep them away? How nonsensical is that! It is a straight out revenue raising measure. Whilst I said that the measure we are debating today to increase the departure tax will raise an additional $78 million over four years, the proposal to increase by $50 per head the visa charges will raise $167 million extra. That brings it to a grand total of $245 million that will be raised by this government over the next four years by charging $50 for visas and by increasing the departure tax—breaking two promises of John Howard's. The sum of $245 million and what are they going to spend?—$41 million.Even the economic geniuses on the other side would have to recognise that this means they will have a little bit left over. And wouldn't we all like to think that the money is going to be spent on some of the projects that are necessary, such as boosting the Australian Customs Service, providing it with a few more sniffer dogs and other equipment to detect some of the less important items people try to bring into this country, drugs or anything else. But it is not. It is just going to come straight off the bottom line of this government. That is where the money is going to go. So that Peter Costello can stand up in here and say: `Isn't it wonderful that we have delivered some sort of a surplus?' Yet it is being delivered off the back of the very industry that we are trying to encourage.It was also interesting, when looking at this issue, that on 1 August 1996 the Australian National Audit Office provided some information and also tabled an audit report on the passenger movement charge and the way in which the departure tax was administered, because two things emerged from that. Firstly, legal advice which was provided to Customs and to the Australian National Audit Office indicated that, in legal terms, that passenger movement charge was a tax. We all knew it was, but there were a few smartypants around trying to say, `No, it is a passenger movement charge. That is code for "tax" but we are not allowed to say "tax".' Secondly, as I have repeated in here on a number of occasions this afternoon, the Prime Minister was very positive and very `core' in his promise that there would be no increases in existing taxes and no introduction of new taxes. Both of those are out the window when we are talking about these two measures here. So it was established that it was a tax.Based on estimates that were provided by agencies, the National Audit Office assessed that departure tax collections in 1995-96 exceeded by approximately $19.1 million customs, immigration and quarantine processing costs and short-term visa issuing costs. What does that mean? It means that the National Audit Office did a check and found out that there was overcharging, if you like, or certainly that what it was costing these organisations to carry out these processes was giving a net benefit in revenue terms to the government even then. This overrecovery arose for two reasons. One was that the customs, immigration and quarantine costs and the passenger processing cost of issuing short-term visas actually were lower than the $27 per departure originally estimated, and that was back in 1996. It is not me saying this, it is the audit office, which carried out this particular inquiry. The second reason was that the rate of growth and the number of departures had been higher than expected, adding more to the departure tax collections than to the passenger processing costs. If anyone doubts that, go and have a look at the audit office report entitled Passenger movement charge: Australian Customs Service published on 1 August 1996 and, for references, have a look at pages 8 and xiv. That will give you the references to those.Here we have, even in 1996, the audit office saying that what it costs to process the departure tax in Australia was giving the government a net revenue boost. What we are seeing now is that that departure tax has been increased by $3 a head for the reason that the government wants to pick up all of those additional people coming in for the year 2000 games and beyond. So they are going to get even more money. As we have established already, just on Treasurer Costello's own budget figures, the departure tax alone will give this government an extra $78 million. I think that is underestimating it, quite frankly.I know that the member for Fadden (Mr Jull), who has a continuing and substantial interest and knowledge in the tourism industry, will substantiate those views—that there are likely to be increased numbers of people coming, certainly in the lead-up to 2000 and, we would all hope, beyond. We would all hope that the year 2000 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games will showcase this nation like never before and that we will see an enormous increase in visitors coming to this country in subsequent years. Whilst that will be great for employment opportunities in this country, it is also going to be great for the government because, on their own estimates, not only will they make that $245 million but I suspect they will be making a lot more.Whilst we find it a little sneaky to have done this and whilst it is disturbing that the government has gone about reaping more money from Australia's important industry of tourism, what we find even more staggering is the fact that they have hamstrung the Australian Tourist Commission. Why do I say this? It is interesting. In the Senate estimates committee hearing yesterday, the Australian Tourist Commission were there giving evidence. I had asked Senator Cook to ask a few questions of the ATC as to how this increased funding that they had been given and that the government had made so much of a fuss about was going to be spent.As I said to you, they are getting an extra $41 million over four years and in next year's terms I think the appropriation was to be $14.1 million. When questioned as to how that might be spent, in what markets and what value would there be for spending that money, it came to pass that the Australian Tourist Commission measured and estimated that the number of bangs they were going to get for their bucks in the United States was on the basis that the Australian dollar was worth 68 cents to the United States dollar. I do not know about you but I cannot remember the last time the Australian dollar was actually at 68 cents. I think at the minute it is something like 61 cents. Some of the estimates I have seen from economists in the papers today suggest it might go to 55 cents.If the Australian Tourist Commission in the United States is given, in Australian dollar terms, $14 million to spend and they are basing their advertising campaigns on a value of 68 cents in the dollar, they are going to be mightily short-changed. If they are talking about advertising in Europe or, specifically, in the United Kingdom, I think the UK currency is down to about 38 or 39 pence at the minute to the Australian dollar. So that is not going to buy you too much in terms of advertising either.I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to meet with the Australian Tourist Commission's managing director for Europe and the United Kingdom. We talked about this very problem and he said to me, `We keep on getting the funds that the ATC makes available to us for advertising in Australian dollars and when you convert it down you simply lose that advertising ability.' I think this is an issue the government needs to consider. Unlike our people who work in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for example, or in Immigration, who are in outposts overseas and get compensation for the cost of living in those particular locations, they are paid their salary in Australian dollars. When they convert it to the currency of the country in which they are living they simply do not get an equivalent amount of money which enables them to live appropriately.Maybe the same sort of factor for correction needs to be put in here because, sadly, as was pointed out yesterday in the Senate estimates committee hearing that was looking at the Australian Tourist Commission, what it means is that that $14.1 million, based on the value of the dollar at the minute, is probably going to buy about $10 million or maybe even less than $10 million worth of advertising. I think that is sad. Simply because of currency fluctuations, the opportunity for us to advertise overseas is going to be lost. I hope the member for Fadden will have a few comments to make about that as well because he does have a great knowledge of the Australian tourist industry and would have made a great minister for tourism. It is unfortunate that he never got that opportunity.I think it is rather sad that when we come into this place to debate a broken promise by the government—an increase in the departure tax—we find that they have not been entirely honest with the Australian people and the Australian tourist industry when they did not tell them that even at the present rates, according to the Australian National Audit Office, they are actually covering their costs and having some left over already. Why couldn't that be put towards improving the advertising of the Australian tourist industry in other destinations? I think it is rather sad as well that, by increasing this, they are making a large slab of money which will not be directed at tourism but will simply come off the bottom line of Peter Costello's budget.I again put on the record, to quote directly from Labor's platform, that:Labor acknowledges that tourism is the fastest growing employment sector in Australia, particularly for young people. It is Australia's second highest export income earner and generates immense goodwill for Australia with overseas visitors. The advent of the Sydney Olympics in the year 2000 will add further emphasis to the important role tourism will play in promoting Australia internationally.What the Australian tourism industry need is continuing assistance through these difficult times. They are not asking for handouts; they are just asking for a fair go. Unfortunately, the money that has been injected, whilst welcome, will not meet that objective, and the way in which it is to be collected—by the broken promise that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) made with respect to increasing taxes—will not be welcomed by those people in the tourism industry. Nevertheless, it is a budget measure. For that reason—and for that sole reason—the opposition will not delay passage of this legislation.17:17:004648Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I am not quite sure on how many occasions during my time in this place I have spoken about passenger movement charge amendment bills or departure tax amendment bills. I always feel somewhat guilty because the introduction of the departure tax came as a result of one of the first recommendations of the House of Representatives select committee in 1978, which I chaired. That first recommendation was that we introduce a departure tax and the money raised be used in the promotion of tourism. The then government were very enthusiastic about that recommendation, and it was the very first one they instituted.Going back over the years, we have quite an interesting history on this particular charge. There was great trauma and drama within the industry in the early 1980s when the depar ture tax, which was then $10, went to $20. A few years later, it was dropped back to $10. The amount has varied since that time. At $30, which the passenger movement charge will be after the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998 comes into force, it is in about the middle range of passenger movement charges around the world.In that respect, I would remind the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) that, when you look at the on-charges for the tourists coming to Australia and leaving Australia, it is far more expensive for a Japanese tourist to go to the United Kingdom where the passenger handling charge at Heathrow airport is, I understand, £45. If you go to an airport like Denver in the United States the effective tax there is around $US40. These things get lost a little bit in the haze. I do not think that that is necessarily going to be the thing that turns people off coming to Australia.I do not disagree with him saying that the tourist industry is very price sensitive in that international market, and it is price sensitive in terms of developing some of those new emerging markets. But, at the end of the day, it is not always these charges that make the difference. You usually find it is the key components of what the airfare charges might be and, indeed, what the accommodation charges might be that determine whether or not people come to Australia. I would suggest that the member for Cunningham might look at some of the core fares—the tour basing fares—that presently exist between Tokyo and Australia and Tokyo and Honolulu. If you check the mileage of the distance between Tokyo and Cairns, it is 15 miles shorter than the distance between Tokyo and Honolulu.8I4MARTINMr Martin—And the same time zone.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—And the same time zone. The last time I checked, the tour basing fare—and I have not checked this for some time—from Australia was about $990. The tour basing fare that was operating into Honolulu was about $530. That is where the real difficulty is. While we can talk about these things and the disincentives that are there, in actual fact there are a number of components that make up the cost of a holiday and determine wheth er or not Australia is going to benefit from the visits that people are going to make.The member for Cunningham mentioned the tremendous impact that tourism has had on Australian employment, and that is true, with more than 600,000 people now employed in the industry. He mentioned the impressions that people have of Australia as a result of their visits and how that helps us around the world. But the tourism industry has more than that—we have a new export industry. In debates like this, we fail to mention not only the investment that has been made in hotels and the infrastructure of Australia but also the investments that have been made in education and the tremendous quality of the graduates of our TAFEs and our tourism and hospitality colleges—both in the private and public sectors—and what that is doing.I read an article just the other day which said that it is now estimated that there is in excess of 350 Australian chefs who are working in London. We have, in fact, developed an export market. Take the hotel chains like Ramada and Sheraton. Years ago, I used to get up here in the House and complain that every hotel manager in Australia seemed to have the name of Fritz or Heinz. In actual fact, if you go overseas now you find that the hotel managers have the name of Blue or Jack or Bill or Dick. The Australian impression that has been made in the international hotel industry has been enormous.I had some experience of this a couple of years ago when I was in the United States and stayed at a hotel in Washington. The young lass behind the desk was an Australian and I started chatting to her. She told me that the food and beverage manager of that hotel was an Australian, the general manager was an Australian, and her other friend on the reception desk was an Australian.One of the real difficulties we have is that a number of these international operators are sitting outside the doors of Australian education establishments. They are waiting to take these young people out and put them in the world. That is fine—I think it is wonderful—but it does not necessarily mean that we are always getting the best out of our investment in terms of what is happening within Australia.I will get back to this bill and the money that is going to be raised. It is true that a lot of money will be raised. I agree with the honourable member for Cunningham—the fact that we have the Olympic Games coming up means that the revenue we are going to get in will probably be far in excess of expectations. It is also fair to say that investments have to be made in looking after the Olympic Games and in looking at the increased flow of traffic coming in.I have taken a particular interest in airport security in recent times. I know—obviously I am not going to mention it here in any technical sense—that the investment for airport security for the Olympic Games will be very extensive and very good. We are looking at some of the great state-of-the-art material—the post-Lockerbie material—that is available overseas now. We are going to make these investments and they are not going to be cheap. There is going to have to be a very real investment in the employment of further staff in areas such as Customs and the rest of it. I am not totally convinced that the money that we have indicated will be raised—and some of the extra—will benefit Australia in the long term and, most importantly, benefit the Australian image overseas.It is exciting when we talk about the increased flow of tourism at the Olympic Games that we are not talking about any significant numbers in the two weeks of the games. We are already seeing—two years out—the start of the movement as the advance parties move in. As more and more teams establish themselves here—and they will be established in Australia for quite some time leading up to the games—friends and families will start to move in and out of the country, building to an ultimate crescendo during the two weeks of the games.The great thing about the investment in the Olympic Games is that it is a long-term investment in tourism; we are going to get that build-up in tourism before the two weeks of the games. If we have half a brain, we will do exactly what overseas countries have done. It always amuses me that visitors to Munich on package tours have almost a compulsory visit to the 1972 Olympic Games site. Munich still attracts that attention. It still uses it 25 or 26 years later as a major tourism stimulus. That is where Australia has got this chance.Although I am a parochial Queenslander, I believe the decision to take it to Sydney was ideal. I hope that people realise the real potential for the promotion of Australia that that is going to bring. Can you just imagine the opening credits of the telecasts every day? If I had the rights to the telecast, I would make sure that I had a camera up in a helicopter and a camera out at the Heads somewhere. I reckon that the opening scene every day should be a big zoom-in straight down the harbour, through the bridge and into the Olympic site. That is going to do absolute marvels in bringing this image of Australia to millions of people around the world. That is where the real investment of the Olympic Games is going to play such a tremendous role in the future and provide so much wealth for Australia, and indeed long-term jobs.Another thing which has been raised in this debate and which was raised yesterday in the Main Committee in another debate is the decline of Asian tourist numbers. The member for Cunningham was quite right. I followed the figures leading up to the end of the year and I think I am right in saying that for December last year the arrivals figures were only down about 2½ per cent on the figures of the year before. They were about 17 per cent higher than the December figures for 1995. It did come as a rush, as the numbers dropped out of Seoul and Bangkok. They declined a little out of Hong Kong. Japan stayed there. What concerns me now is that in recent months we are starting to see a decline in the Japanese figures. I understand that the latest figures would indicate that we are down about 14 or 15 per cent. They were pretty stable until the early months of this year but now they are starting to move down.I do not say this as any great criticism of the industry, or indeed the Australian Tourist Commission or governments of any administration, but a lot of time and effort were put into the development of the Asian tourist markets, and rightly so. For the period I was with the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, we concentrated very heavily on Japan. We made that infrastructure and it built quite well. The pilots dispute came along in 1989 and the market went bad. We went in again and we put tremendous concentration into that Asian market.In the 1980s we had some interest out of the United States, and those figures were quite good. We also saw the emergence of some quite unlikely markets out of Europe. For a while we were the flavour of the month out of Denmark and Sweden; that has gone down a little. The French started to pick us up as an international destination. We had some quite good figures out of Italy, and Spain was starting to develop. Since the recovery after the pilots dispute we have got a bit lazy in the intelligence we were gathering and the efforts we were making in developing new markets. Those new markets were not just China. I think we are fortunate that China has made us a preferred destination. Frankly, I do not think that we are going to make piles of money out of the Chinese market. It is pretty basic tourism and in terms of yield I do not think it is going to be as great as some people indicate. I think the Indian market certainly has potential. We have never really focused much beyond Asia, except for a couple of those traditional areas.One of the interesting markets that has been emerging for the last decade has been the South American market. It was interesting that during the time of the apartheid regime in South Africa, the Argentinians, and to a degree the Brazilians, were moving into South Africa in big numbers. They then switched into Europe and then started moving to the United States. The next move was obviously into Asia or into Australasia.We have never really seriously looked at trying to develop that market. Part of the problem was that there were no air links and, as far as the old Qantas regime is concerned, enough said. We just could not get them interested in looking at developing new markets at all. I think we have missed the boat to a degree on that South American market—they have started to look at going to other places. There might still be some hope, I think, with the tremendous relationship between Australia and Chile, for example, but we can build that up. That is an emerging market that is quite exciting.The other market that is really just starting to move is the market out of the Middle East, and that Middle East market is high yield. The stories we hear about the sheikh coming on board and taking over the entire first-class section of an aircraft with a cast of thousands behind him and taking over a couple of floors in a luxury hotel are quite correct. It does happen. I would hope that whoever may be in charge of the tourism portfolio and whoever may be in charge of the Australian Tourist Commission would look at developing markets such as that; not to get our focus away from Asia, but so that we do not become quite as complacent as we were about the way the Asian market started to develop and come forward. So there are some great challenges to the industry at the moment.It is good that the numbers from the United States and Europe have increased. Unfortunately, those numbers do not necessarily go into the places that need the help. We are feeling a bit of hurt in Surfers Parade and in Cairns in particular because of the downturns in the Asian numbers, and the European and the American markets are not necessarily going there in force. So it is going to be a challenge to make sure that we know what we are doing there. But it is a challenge that the industry have faced before; they have had their downturns in the past. I think it is a magnificent challenge. I just hope that the extra funds that will be raised from the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998 will go some way toward developing those new markets and making sure tourism remains one of our great export industries and the greatest generator of employment in Australia.17:32:004651Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—in reply—I begin by thanking the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) and the member for Fadden (Mr Jull) for their contributions to the debate on the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998 . It is always interesting to listen to the member for Fadden talk about travel issues and tourism issues. I am sure he is without peer in this place as a member with an understanding of these issues and the airline industry in particular. I have enjoyed his company on travels from time to time and his knowledge is truly outstanding. I also thank the member for Cunningham for his contribution and for the indication that the opposition will be supporting this legislation.This legislation implements the decision announced by the government in the 1998 budget to increase the existing passenger movement charge from $27 to $30 with a date of effect from 1 January 1999. The increase was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and will help to meet the additional costs associated with the transit of people during the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. The rate of the charge is fixed at an amount that covers the overall cost of customs, immigration and quarantine processing of international travellers.I noted the comments of the member for Cunningham when he queried, as a result of an audit report, whether or not there had been an over-collection of moneys. Subsequent discussions in relation to that audit report suggest that the system used to calculate the figures is open to question. The accounting system was not the usual one used for these sorts of circumstances, and that figure is, to put it mildly, open to question.The charge is imposed on the departure of a person from Australia. It is collected by airlines and shipping companies at the time of ticket sales and remitted to the Commonwealth in accordance with the arrangements entered into under the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act. I think these arrangements have worked very well for all stakeholders and passengers have appreciated the fact that they no longer have to line up in a queue to buy departure stamps. The cost of their departure is covered by means of this new mechanism. The current arrangements with the airlines are due to expire on 30 June 1998, and the government is finalising negotiations with interested parties for new arrangements to apply from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001.The reason the bill is being brought forward at this time is so that these negotiations can proceed smoothly and also so that clear notice can be given to the industry of the increased charges to avoid the embarrassment of trying to collect additional amounts at a later time. I thank the House for the smooth passage of this matter and commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4652Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Committees46524652465210000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—The Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Jull to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in place of Mr Bradford.Bills4652r5374652Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.17:37:004652Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I have been saying for a while now that, as sure as night follows day, if this government is re-elected the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Howard) will axe Medicare. Tonight the axe hits another part of Medicare.0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—How can you say that with a straight face?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett) interjects and says, `How can you say that?' Tonight an axe wielded with David Foster like power will smash into the trunk of Medicare because in the next 90 minutes we will debate the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 , a bill which I believe is the beginning of the end of Medicare. It is the beginning of the end of Medicare because this bill means that, for the first time in Australia since Medicare was established, we will not have the five-year Medicare agreements with each of the states—the five-year guarantee that Medicare in public hospitals is there as the safety net for every public patient, wherever they may live, whatever their circumstances.This is a $29 billion bill which pays for hospital services, and it represents the complete failure of the Howard government to reach Medicare agreements with the states. Apparently the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) can negotiate health care agreements with New Zealand and Ireland but cannot negotiate health care agreements with his own Liberal and National party colleagues in the states. He certainly cannot negotiate a Medicare agreement with the state of New South Wales.The acting minister gave us a 20-line second reading speech for a bill that is to allocate $29 billion to the states. It is clear to anyone that this government does not care about public hospitals; public hospitals that serve two out of three Australians for most surgery and almost every Australian for emergency care. As we pointed out in the last couple of weeks, the budget provided not one extra dollar for public hospitals that was not on the table when the Premiers walked out of the Premiers Conference two months ago. It seems that this government has come to the conclusion that it does not want Medicare agreements. It hates Medicare so much that it cannot even stand to have the name `Medicare' in the title of this legislation. That is why we know that, if this government is re-elected, as sure as night follows day, this mob will axe Medicare. It wants to go to the election without having signed any Medicare agreements, and it wants to have a free hand afterwards. That should send a chill down the spine of every member of this House.We have had a few indications lately about what the government really thinks about Medicare and public hospitals. On 21 May the Treasurer (Mr Costello) said that he thought people getting treatment in public hospitals was a problem. The Treasurer said that he thought a good public hospital system is some place where people who cannot afford to get medical care should go. That is not what we on this side of the House think of public hospitals. We think public hospitals are the safety net for Australians, no matter what their circumstances. It is the safety net that two-thirds of Australians are placing their faith in.0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—It was one-third before you guys got into power.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—It is the government of which you are a member that has cut the federal funding for public hospitals by $800 million.0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—That is rubbish.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—You go and talk to the people at the Blue Mountains hospital or the Nepean hospital or the Hawkesbury River hospital about the pressure that their hospital is under because of the federal cutbacks that your government has made. You come into this House and vote for cuts that have affected the hospitals in your own electorate, and you cannot walk away from your own personal responsibility for supporting these cuts in federal funding for public hospitals. That is why Maggie Deahm will be the next member for Macquarie. She will be re-elected as the member for Macquarie at the next election because you have failed in your responsibility to speak up for your constituents.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask the member to direct his remarks through the chair.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—We on this side of the House believe that the government has a responsibility to make sure that the public hospital system is looking after those public patients. The Howard government wants to leave the way clear to impose up-front hospital charges at public hospitals if they get re-elected, and this bill allows them to do it. We are not prepared to let that happen, and we do not trust this minister to stop it. We will be moving an amendment to the bill in the consideration in detail stage to ensure that that cannot happen. I am quite happy for copies of that amendment to now be circulated in the chamber. I foreshadow that that amendment will be moved when we get to the consideration in detail stage.If the government is not prepared to accept the amendment, they will have made it clear that their intention is to allow a re-elected Howard government to introduce compulsory charges for public patients in public hospitals. We know that the Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong, has always hated Medicare. We know it is something that he has always opposed. Let me remind the House of some of his most famous utterances on Medicare:Medicare has been an unmitigated disaster . . . Radical surgery will be performed on Medicare . . . The second thing we'll do is get rid of the bulk-billing system. It's an absolute rort . . . We'll pull it right apart.That is what the member for Bennelong said about Medicare.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Was that 1985?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—It was only two weeks ago that Peter Costello said that he intends to re-engineer the health care system. We have the Prime Minister saying that he wants to pull it right apart—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Order! I would ask the honourable member for Dobell to direct his remarks through the chair, and I would ask the minister not to aggravate the honourable member for Dobell.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. As recently as two weeks ago, we had the Treasurer saying that he would re-engineer the entire health care system. We had the Treasurer saying that he wants to introduce a system of no claim bonuses in private health insurance. In some way he thinks that human being's bodies are the same as motor vehicles. The elderly and the chronically ill are the greatest users of the health care system. They will be the ones hardest hit by the Treasurer's intention to introduce no claim bonuses into private health insurance.At the end of the day this bill, in allocating $29 billion, is providing inadequate funding for the Australian public hospital system. It is not just the Labor Party that is saying that; the states in their submissions to the Senate inquiry into the Medicare agreement stated that 1.4 million patients are not funded over the five-year agreement of the offer. We have the AMA stating that it is quite clear that there will be a doubling in the waiting lists. Let me remind the House of what the AMA had to say. According to Dr Robert Hodge, one of the AMA's federal councillors:Public hospital waiting lists will double in a few short years unless the Commonwealth dramatically lifts its funding offer . . .He further stated:If no more money is offered, hospital waiting lists will blow out and the quality of care doctors are able to provide will be compromised.Some 116,000 Australians are on hospital waiting lists—this is likely to double over the next few years unless a better deal is struck.Consultations with colleagues in all states over the past few weeks has demonstrated a deep and unprecedented level of concern among surgeons working in public hospitals.People are waiting in corridors to get access to hospital beds, less and less elective surgery is being undertaken and teaching and research is being lost, particularly in out-patient departments.So it is quite clear that the AMA has very serious concerns about the government's inadequate offer. We have a former leader of the Liberal Party, Dr John Hewson, completely dismissing the government's claims that this offer represents a 15 per cent increase in hospital funding. Dr Hewson was quoted on The World Today on 13 May as saying:Well it's true, on the numbers there's a 15 per cent increase, but if you allow for things like population, if you allow for the aging of the population, if you allow for the service delivery considerations, that 15 per cent shrinks to 1 per cent, and that is why the states are screaming.That is why public patients are going to be hurt by this government's inadequate federal funding for public hospitals. On the Face to Face program of 17 May we have the minister for health stating:If you take age out; if you take population out; if you take any drop in private health insurance out; the increase is 1.5% per year, so that's 7.5% over 5 years . . . We have the minister for health disputing the Prime Minister's claims that it is a 15 per cent increase. The minister for health pulls the rug out from underneath his own claims that this is a 15 per cent real offer. It is clear that the minister's press secretary winds the minister for health up every day and then sends him out for his doorstops. Is it any wonder that the minister is getting into so much trouble when we have comments such as this one reported by the ABC, who ran a story on Tuesday, 5 May, which stated:The office of Federal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge now says that Government's patience may run out and it could change its offer of payment.We have the health minister making it clear that one of the weapons he intends to use to bludgeon the states, to take the axe to Medicare, is to actually cut the amount which is currently out there on offer to each of the states. This is despite the fact that on 23 March the Prime Minister said:. . . I make it very clear to the patients of Australia and to the public of Australia: you will not suffer because of the petulance of the Premiers—this is when they walked out. He continued:Every single dollar contained in the offer that we made will be delivered in full and on time.The minister for health's press secretary winds him up like a sort of clockwork toy and sends him out. The minister for health and his office is out there saying that the offer to the states is going to be cut because this minister for health has lost patience with the states. So we have the press secretary to the minister for health overruling the Prime Minister's guarantee that every single dollar of the offer would be provided to the states.One of our concerns is that this very bill does not comply with the Prime Minister's undertakings. We had the Prime Minister stating that every single dollar of that offer would be delivered. This bill does not meet the Prime Minister's offer. The Prime Minister said that the payments to the states would be indexed according to a whole number of factors, including declines in private health insurance. This bill is a lump sum each year. There is no indexation; the offer that the Prime Minister made that every single dollar would be provided to the states in full and on time is not provided for in this piece of legislation.Someone is misleading the Australian people and someone is misleading the health ministers of each of the states and the territories. We know who that person is: it is the Prime Minister, John Howard, the member for Bennelong, who at the Premiers Conference said that every single dollar would be delivered. But the bill that has been introduced into the House does not comply with the undertaking that the Prime Minister has given.If you look in detail at the offer, it is ludicrous for the government to claim that there is a massive increase in funding. They have got dodgy figures all through this package. They have double counted the funding for mental health and palliative care; they know that there is $479 million for mental health and palliative care in this offer and they know that this area was not included in the last Medicare agreement. They claim that there is a substantial increase in the new Medicare agreement because they have brought mental health and palliative care funding into the tent. It is a clear demonstration of that old saying that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. This government's claim that there is a 15 per cent real increase in federal funding for public hospitals is worse than a damned lie; it is quite clear that they have doubled counted the funding for mental health and palliative care.Veterans' Affairs funding has also not been in the Medicare agreements before, and only 45 per cent of veterans currently use public hospitals. We have had the massive cuts to federal funding of public hospitals in the last two budgets—$800 million in 1996 from the forward estimates, and another $400 million from the state health budgets and the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program. It is very clear that the government has abandoned the Medicare agreements to give it the flexibility to take the axe to Medicare if it is re-elected.The real concern is that this government's inability to sign agreements with each of the states and territories before 1 July leaves Medicare and the protection for public patients in public hospitals completely at risk. Because there is no binding agreement with the states, there is no certainty whatsoever. The only limit in the bill is in the maximum amount the Commonwealth can pay the states. There is no minimum amount which this minister can provide each of the states and territories under the legislation before the House.Every year, each of the state health ministers will be at the whim of the federal minister for health. He has already shown he has no intention of keeping the Prime Minister's promise about making sure every dollar is delivered on time. So every year we will get the same round of bickering and acrimonious negotiations, which are not just bad for the public health system but disastrous for planning for public hospitals and a nightmare for patients, who are the ones that really suffer at the end of the day.This minister has run the length and breadth of the country claiming that this package is about reform in health, but there is no reform in this bill at all. One part of the minister's reform plan was the national development plan. This was supposed to be capital funding for structural reform, but the minister sold out his own plan when he gave Queensland a pre-election bribe and turned this money into recurrent funding—completely contradicting his own guidelines for submission based project funding.Because this minister has been unable to negotiate, his fancy talk about reform has come to nothing. He cannot bring about change in health unilaterally. The minister should soon start to learn that you can only negotiate these things in a rational and trusting way, not in a way that seeks to bludgeon the states to the negotiating table.I would now like to turn to the three Medicare principles which have been put into this piece of legislation. They have been rewritten in such a way that a strict literal reading of them would make it impossible for any state to comply with any of them, ever. For example, principle 1 states:Eligible persons are to be given the choice to receive, free of charge as public patients, health and emergency services of a kind or kinds that are currently, or were historically, provided by hospitals.What is an example of a service which was never so provided? I would like the minister to tell us when he sums up. Give me an example of some medical service that has never been provided at some stage by hospitals. There is no time limit on this. How far back are we going to go to look at the role of hospitals in each of the states and territories? If you compare it with the previous principle in the former Medicare agreement, it states much more simply:Eligible persons must be given the choice to receive public hospital services free of charge as public patients.Turning to the second principle, the minister's new version in the bill states:Access to such services by public patients free of charge is to be on the basis of clinical need and within a clinically appropriate period.I do not think anyone has met that particular principle yet. The new version of principle 3 states:Arrangements are to be in place to ensure equitable access to such services for all eligible persons, regardless of their geographic location.That is also so wide ranging that I doubt any state health system meets that principle either. Compare that with the old principle 3, which stated as follows:To the maximum practicable extent, a state will ensure the provision of public hospital services equitably to all eligible persons regardless of their geographic location.What they have deliberately done is to broaden the principles in such a manner as to make them meaningless. The effect of these new principles is that the minister can choose himself whether or not to pay who he likes and when he likes. This legislation therefore has no meaning whatsoever. It is no guarantee to the states or to the people who are out there working in the public hospital system that federal funding will be maintained. It leaves the way completely open, if this government is re-elected, for the radical surgery that the Prime Minister proposed for Medicare back in 1987.The old Medicare principles were less general and less open to ministerial fiat and ministerial interpretation. The government has deliberately broadened the principles to such a ridiculous extent that, as I say, they are trying to render them meaningless. Once again, this applies to up-front hospital charges as well and we believe that there is no guar antee whatsoever on that. That is why we will be moving our amendments in the consideration in detail stage, to try to ensure that public patients have a guarantee that they will not be hit by compulsory charges no matter what this government seeks to do.For those reasons, we believe that this legislation is an outrage. The future of Medicare is to be decided in a 90-minute debate in the House of Representatives, a 90-minute debate that is going to commit the Australian taxpayer to spend $29 billion. For all the people out there who know that their local public hospital is under pressure, this is what this government thinks of you and your local hospital: 90 minutes on a Wednesday night; 90 minutes to allow all of those concerns to be dealt with by the national parliament; 90 minutes to determine whether or not their inadequate and measly $29 billion is going to address the pressures and concerns that are out there due to the crisis in the Australian public hospital system.Come the next election, members of the government will each individually be held accountable for their neglect of public hospitals, for their attacks on the public hospital system, for their obsession with private health insurance, for wasting $1.7 billion on private health insurance while the public hospital system lurches from crisis to crisis. They are the people who will be held responsible for the fact that the Australian public hospital system is not going to receive the funding that it so desperately needs.17:57:004656Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—The hypocrisy and deceit of the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) is astounding, even by Labor Party standards. I think he spent too long reading the Labor Party campaign manual and not enough time researching the facts. I suggest the member for Dobell might take a look at the budget papers to correct some of the rubbish he has just sprouted about supposed cuts in health care funding.Let me inform him of these facts. In the last year of the Labor government, Commonwealth government funding on hospitals was $5.49 billion. In the first year of the coalition government, it rose to $5.61 billion, in the second year to $6 billion and in this recent budget to $6.7 billion. That is an increase of $600 million over the first two years or, counting this next year, an increase of $1,244 million in Commonwealth government funding to public hospitals.If you look at the total health care budget, the rise is even more significant. In Labor's last year, Labor spent $18,633 million. In the coalition's first year, it was raised to $19,294 million, in the second year to $20,734 million and in this year's budget to $22,273 million. That is an increase over those three years of $3.6 billion.Even the member for Dobell should know the difference between an increase and a decrease. If it rises in three years by $3.6 billion, it goes up, not down. That, for the member for Dobell, is an increase, not a decrease; it is an addition, not a cut. I am sure even the member for Dobell would understand that an increase of $3.6 billion is a significant increase in government funding for the health care system.The Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 is necessary because of the Premiers' refusal earlier in the year to accept the Commonwealth's five-year health care agreement. It delivers in full the health funding offer made at the Premiers Conference in March. As the Commonwealth is unwilling to wait any longer to ensure the continuity of funding for state hospitals, it is necessary to introduce this supplementary legislation. In other words, the government has to introduce extra legislation to overcome the petulance of the state Premiers and to ensure adequate funding for public hospitals, in spite of the stunt of the Premiers and in spite of the stunt of the member for Dobell.Two main points need to be made in this context. Firstly, contrary to the deceit of the opposition, this government is committed to maintaining the integrity of the health care system and of the public health system. This involves both maintaining Medicare and ensuring a workable private health system. It is imperative that all Australians, regardless of means and regardless of circumstances, have access to quality hospital services. The coalition is committed to exactly that. It is committed to maintaining Medicare. I say again for the members of the opposition: the government is committed to maintaining Medicare.The government is committed to ensuring universally available acute health care services. This supplementary legislation before the house demonstrates that commitment, in spite of the lack of cooperation of most of the state governments and in spite of the posturing of the opposition. The bill includes a prerequisite, for the states to receive funding under this bill, that they adhere to the principles of ensuring universal access to health and emergency services free of charge on the basis of clinical need and within clinically appropriate periods, regardless of the patient's location.It is worth again noting the details of the five-year Medicare offer that was rejected by the Premiers and that was just criticised inaccurately and incorrectly by the member for Dobell. This offer was a very fair and very reasonable one. The offer was for $30.17 billion over the next five years, up from $24.99 billion in the previous agreement. That is an increase of 15 per cent in real terms over Labor's forward estimates. This is a significant point: not only was it an increase over the past agreement, not only was it an increase over what Labor last negotiated, but also it was an increase over Labor's own forward estimates. Those were estimates they could not have met themselves, but they are estimates which we are not only meeting but in fact exceeding.The offer includes an 11 per cent increase in the base level funding. It also includes significantly an indexation factor to cover increasing costs. This is important in light of the distortions by the member for Dobell. This indexation covers factors such as the growth and ageing of the population, the increasing costs of hospital services and, importantly, any reductions in private health insurance. It also includes, on top of that increase in the base level of funding, $500 million for mental health and palliative care. In addition to that, it includes another $750 million to fund veteran health care at full cost over the next five years. Not only is this a great boost to the veteran community, includ ing the extension of the gold health card to another 50,000 World War II veterans, but also it takes some of the pressure off the public hospital system. The package also included $500 million for projects aimed at restructuring the health care system.I note that the Queensland and ACT governments have accepted the $23 million offered under the critical and urgent treatment waiting list scheme of the $120 million offered. The needy in the other states are missing out. Yet the member for Dobell would encourage the other Premiers to stand firm and encourage them not to accept that offer and encourage them to maintain the lengthy waiting lists and encourage them not to accept this extra $120 million that the Commonwealth government is offering to immediately reduce the waiting lists in state public hospitals.The second point that needs to be made is that a quality and affordable health care system requires also a viable private health care system. I am sure that even the member for Dobell would accept that without it there is an unsustainable burden on the public health care system. Before Labor came into office in 1983, Australia had a good health system, a workable combination of private health insurance and free public hospitals. It was based on the right principle: if you can look after yourself then you take some responsibility to do so; if you cannot then the public hospital system is there. Both the private and the public system were of high quality—high quality public hospital care and affordable private health insurance.Then the Labor vandals and wreckers got their hands on Australia's health care system. Thirteen years of Labor saw a steady assault on the quality of our health system. In 1983, over 63 per cent of Australians had private health insurance. By 1996, when Labor was thrown out of office, that figure had declined to close to 32 per cent. This disastrous decline was a result of a number of policy disasters, enacted either out of sheer ignorance by the Labor Party or else in a premeditated desire to destroy the private health system. Early in its time in government, Labor removed the tax rebate on private health insurance pre miums, thereby significantly increasing the real cost of premiums and causing an exodus from private health insurance. I note Labor's desire to remove the current $450 private health insurance rebate and thereby accelerate the decline in private health insurance numbers. Other decisions in those disastrous 13 years, such as a withdrawal of the bed day subsidy and the withdrawal of the reinsurance pool contribution, also added to the cost of private health cover and hastened its decline.The ideologically blinkered approach may have warmed the hearts of the Labor Left but put growing pressure on the public health care system. There is an estimated rise of $100 million a year on the cost of running the public hospital system for each one per cent drop-out in private health insurance cover. Thus, Labor's failure over their 13 years—in spite of the warnings by their former health minister, Graham Richardson, that something had to be done to address that decline—to halt the decline in membership from 63 per cent to 32 per cent has added $3.1 billion a year to the cost of running the public hospital system. Because of the ideological obsession of the Labor Party, they have added such an unsustainable burden on the public system that it is costing the public system an extra $3.1 billion a year to cater for the extra numbers in the public health care system.A number of state health ministers—including, significantly, Dr Refshauge—have admitted in recent weeks that this decline in private health insurance has been one of the problems. They acknowledge that the decline in private health membership has placed an intolerable strain on the public system. We have Dr Refshauge on one hand admitting that we need to prop up the private health system to reduce the strain on the public system and we have the member for Dobell on the other hand trying to tear it up. This is typical of the member for Dobell and his colleagues. They are out to destroy the private health system completely and to exacerbate the growing pressures on the public hospital system. They are more interested in ideological purity than in the health care of the Australian community.This is a demonstration of their shameful ignorance and incompetence. On this issue, as with many others, Labor is driven more by point scoring than by genuine policy debate; driven more by ideological obsession than by sound policy; driven more by political ambition than by any concern for the common good. This government is committed to Medicare. It is committed to ensuring health care for all the needy and it is committed to building a health care system that is workable. This government's commitment stands in sharp contrast to the hypocrisy and nonsense that we have heard from the other side.18:07:004659Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—We now know the truth about this government's commitment to Medicare. It does not exist. As the previous speaker, the member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett), has quite clearly indicated to the House, he wants to go back to the system we had pre-Medicare—pre-1983—when two million Australians were without any health insurance coverage whatsoever. The member for Macquarie has made it quite plain to the House that the government wants to go back to a system where we had to rely on private health insurance, and public care was available only for the needy. I think that is how he put it at the end of his statement: public hospital care should be available only for the needy. We on this side of the House do not think that is the sort of health system we should have in this country. That is the system they have in the United States, and what is the situation there? They have 40 million people without any health insurance coverage, and it costs that country twice as much for health care as it does here in Australia. Labor is committed to Medicare and we want to see it strengthened; we do not want to see it whittled away.We do not share this government's obsession—and I would have to say that there is no other word for it—with private health insurance. The job of the health minister should be to make sure that Medicare works and that people can get hospital care when they need it—not have an obsession with private health insurance. That is not the main game. The main game is making sure that there is sufficient funding for patient care, not wasting taxpayers' money on private health insurance subsidies, which their very own Jeff Kennett has called `money down the drain'.This is the question the member for Macquarie should be able to answer: why is it that every previous Medicare agreement has been signed but this time the Premiers know that the amount of money being put forward is just not enough to make public hospitals pay? With all previous Medicare agreements, the states signed up, but not this time. It is not by any means the case that all the state Premiers are Labor. It is the Victorian Premier who has been very outspoken, along with his Liberal colleagues.I do not want to let the state governments off the hook, because the states do carry a significant responsibility to fund their public hospitals properly. The Kennett government did significantly cut public hospital funding in Victoria when it first came into office, but that does not mean that we should have a situation which leads us to debating this bill tonight. We are debating this bill because this government is incapable of getting the states to sign Medicare agreements. For hospitals like the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, which was technically bankrupt earlier this year because of the cuts of the Howard and Kennett governments, in my electorate, it will mean that they have no security about their future funding.There are two things I would say to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) in the context of this legislation. If it is the case that we are not going to have Medicare agreements but just have hospital funding paid directly to the states without the states signing agreements, what is this government going to do to stop the massive privatisation of public hospitals that is going on around the country? Let us have a look at the real impacts of the privatisation of these hospitals. In Western Australia we saw the privatisation of a public hospital, the Joondalup Hospital. Less than two weeks after it was officially opened, it was decided to cancel elective surgery for public patients. What did this government, which says it is so committed to public patients, do to the Western Australian government to make sure that this closure did not affect public patients? Absolutely nothing. As the memo from this hospital shows, the closure of wards was to affect only public patients. The government did absolutely nothing to make sure that public patients would retain their access to this hospital. This is the first indication of the development of a two-tiered health system in this country.This move is going ahead in leaps and bounds in my own state of Victoria. An article in the Age on 7 May this year reported that doctors from Sale, Maffra and Heyfield hospitals were writing to the state minister saying that they are very concerned about those hospitals having to reduce medical services so that the privatised Latrobe Regional Hospital could make enough money. The state government has given the private owner of the Latrobe hospital—Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd—a 20-year monopoly on public health services in this area. The doctors in Sale, Maffra and Heyfield are very concerned that public hospital access to essential services in those towns is going to be reduced.In my own electorate, the biggest privatisation of all is taking place. The Victorian government recently advertised for a registration of capability for the privatisation of the Austin and Repatriation Hospital—the proposed basis of private sector involvement to build, own and operate that hospital. We in the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne are very concerned at that change. What I would like to know from the minister is how he intends to stop the privatisation of the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre so that the people of the north-eastern suburbs—8V5WORTHMs Worth—Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the question be now put.MG4LEEMr Lee—You can't do it in the middle of a speech. It is customary to let someone finish their speech first.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I will put two questions to the minister. What is the minister going to do to stop the privatisation of the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre so that the people of the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne can continue to get public hospital care when they need it? I would like to call on the minister to make a decent offer to the states so that the Medicare agreements can in fact be signed, so that public patients in all of our hospitals, particularly those public hospitals that are being privatised in Western Australia and in Victoria, will know that they will not be charged for essential health care. Without Medicare agreements no public patient can be guaranteed that they will not face charges. This government seems as if it is just going to sit on its hands and watch major teaching hospitals being privatised around this country to the absolute detriment of essential health care.18:16:004660Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Mr Deputy Speaker—8V5WORTHMs Worth—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have moved that the question be put. On the basis of good manners, the opposition speaker was allowed to complete her few sentences, but I had already moved that the question be put.ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I have the call. The only option open to the parliamentary secretary is to move that I be no longer heard. You have given me the call—with great respect, sir.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—You are quite right.ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—The 1998 OECD Economic Surveys report into the wellbeing of the Australian economy made two important observations about the state of our domestic health care system. The report indicated that the two factors which had brought about persistent increases in health expenditure over the past decade were the lack of incentives for public hospitals to improve the efficiency of service delivery and the steep decline in the number of Australians covered by private health insurance. It is in the context of these issues that I wish to discuss the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 .This bill seeks to earmark more than $29.5 billion over the next five years towards the cost of health and emergency services in the states and territories. This represents an increase of 15 per cent in real funding over the life of the yet to be renegotiated Medicare agreement. Given the coalition's current fiscal consolidation program, this should be judged to be both fair and an attractive offer.Despite this, state government leaders in attendance at the March 1998 Premiers Conference deemed it appropriate to walk out on discussions with the Commonwealth government because they were not satisfied with the amount on offer. They did so believing their bargaining power to be at a peak, owing to the imminent federal election, and they demonstrated that they intend to behave no differently from their predecessors when it comes to haggling over the terms of Medicare agreements.The states variously profess an aversion to tied grants and yet, whenever these grants come up for renewal, state leaders always argue for more than is being proposed. This is possibly in some cases because previously the offers were always less than was actually available. It is my view that we live in a federal system that has many of the disadvantages and few of the benefits normally attributed to a federal system of government. Despite the fact that we are gearing up to celebrate the centenary of Federation, we are no closer than we were nearly 100 years ago to enjoying the benefits of responsibility and accountability that should flow from having three distinct and competitive levels of government.Motion (by Mr Truss) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4661Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:21:004661Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Clause 6, page 3, at the end of subclause (1), add: and is observing the condition set out in subsection (3).(2) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (3) It shall be a condition of the grant that a State not impose compulsory hospital charges for inpatient care on eligible persons who elect to be treated as public patients. I will not spend a lot of time speaking in the debate so that other colleagues will get a chance to speak. I simply make the point that the amendments that we are proposing seek to make it absolutely clear-cut that any state that receives funding under the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 will not be able to impose compulsory hospital charges for in-patient care on eligible persons—that is, anyone who has a Medicare card—who elect to be treated as public patients. This is the belt and braces protection for public patients that state governments do not impose new compulsory charges on public patients in public hospitals.18:22:004661Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—The amendments of the opposition go to the heart of my perspective that the now highly centralised system of revenue raising in Australia means that successive Commonwealth governments have been able to increasingly impose their will on other levels of government. What is proposed by the opposition is merely an extension of that.The states have played their part in this fiscal centralisation process by failing to take responsibility for raising their own revenues over the years. The lack of economic discipline that has characterised so many recent state government administrations is a direct consequence of their inability to implement adequate and efficient taxing measures.The analysis of our health care system by the OECD in the report I mentioned earlier found that:Efforts to contain spending pressures through a cap on budgets for public-sector hospitals had undermined efficiency as restraint has been imposed where capped budgets made it possible, not necessarily where resources (are) being used least effectively.What an indictment of the manner in which our state and territory governments run their hospital systems. This observation also reflects badly on the Commonwealth, which perpetuates arrangements that allow this to happen. If the state leaders were to be held politically accountable by their electors for the way in which they administer their public hospitals, it is certain they would manage their affairs in a much more efficient and accountable way. The only reason they can get away with inefficient and redundant practices in the public hospital system is that these can be easily masked by way of cost shifting.The fact that the majority of state and territory leaders refused the Commonwealth offer, which I referred to earlier in the second reading debate, which would have given the former more flexibility but fewer opportunities for cost shifting, revealed their continued reluctance to be truly responsible managers of our public hospitals. Until such time as both the consumers and the providers of our health system have reason to be directly concerned with the cost of health care, I cannot see there being much change in the status quo.As I have already indicated, the OECD survey noted the correlation between declining private health membership numbers and rising costs in the public health system. Despite increases in the Medicare levy on supposed high income earners who fail to take out private health cover and the extension of incentive payments to low and middle income earners who do not maintain private health insurance, the coalition has not been able to stem the flow out of private health insurance facilities. The new Medicare agreement recognises this and intends to automatically compensate the states for increased hospital costs resulting from falling private health insurance levels. Despite this, the states continue to assert that the agreement is not generous enough. The haemorrhaging from private health insurance is:. . . the creation of a compulsory tax-financed public system (which) has limited private insurance to (little more than) a top up role.These are not my words. I have quoted directly from the 1998 OECD report, which correctly lays the responsibility for the scheme at the feet of the government which introduced an almost open-ended system of unlimited access to so-called `free' medical care, otherwise known as Medicare. I am referring, of course, to a former Labor government. From the start, the Medicare levy misrepresented the true cost of funding our public health care system. Instead of injecting a degree of honesty into the Medicare levy by setting it at a rate that reflected the real costs of Medicare, the Hawke government created and perpetuated an arrangement in which taxpayers received subsidised health care in return for what looks like a nominal levy on their income. Despite a 24 per cent increase in the Medicare levy from around $3.3 billion in 1995-96 to an estimated $4.1 billion in 1998-99, the revenue raised from this impost continues to fall far short of the cost of federal funding for our public health system. According to the 1998-99 budget, the cost to the Commonwealth to fund hospital services for the coming financial year is somewhere in the vicinity of $6.7 billion. (Time expired)18:27:004662Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—These amendments are completely unnecessary and shows that the Labor Party and the two shadow ministers have not bothered to read the legislation that we have put into the parliament. The Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 states very clearly on page 3, clause 6(1):A grant of financial assistance under section 4 is not payable to a State unless the Minister is satisfied that the State is adhering to the principles set out in subsection (2).Clause 6(2) then goes on to say:Eligible persons are to be given the choice to receive, free of charge as public patients, health and emergency services of a kind or kinds that are currently, or were historically, provided by hospitals.So that is totally provided for in the legislation. The second point is that not only is it redundant but it is destructive and shows again that the opposition does not understand health. The section in the amendments which refers to clause 6, page 4 says:It shall be a condition of the grant that a State not impose compulsory hospital charges for inpatient care on eligible persons . . . That totally is counter to everything that is happening in the health system at the moment. The fact is that there is a shift from in-hospital to out-of-hospital services, there is increased use of hospital in the home, and this clause has been put in so that people who in the future have services in the community that are currently being provided in the home are not disadvantaged. To limit this amendment, as the opposition does, to just in-patient services leaves the way open for people in the future who are having community based services to be charged, which is completely the opposite of what it is intending to do.There is only one reason for this amendment: the opposition wants to put out a tawdry little press release at the end of this saying, `The government voted against ruling out charges for hospitals.' We will vote against it for two reasons. Firstly, it is already in the legislation. Secondly, these amendments are positively harmful. We have actually beaten you to it. We have put a press release out around the gallery saying that you are a goose, that you do not understand the legislation, that you have not read it, that it is already in there and that you do not understand what is happening in hospitals. Along with your confusion the other day over what happened with the PBS and its demand effects, this is another example showing that you do not understand the health system.I could reply to each and every one of the inaccuracies that exist in this legislation, but the suspension for dinner is coming up and it would take far more time than I have. In terms of the opposition's misrepresentation, no amount of scaring, no amount of misquoting the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and no amount of misrepresenting the situation will allow you to scare people because the fact is we have covered the bases. We have no desire to see people charged. We have covered it completely by having it in the legislation. This is just a further example of your not understanding the complexities of health and of your trying to make cheap political points out of this health care agreement. As a government, we have no intention of allowing you to do it. Quite frankly, this is too important an area in which to play politics. The government has made a fair dinkum attempt here. It is a generous one and it should be supported.18:30:004663Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will be very brief. My response to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) is that, first of all, you are asking us to trust you. The Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 says in clause 6(1):A grant of financial assistance under section 4 is not payable to a State unless the Minister is satisfied that the State is adhering to the principles . . . Minister, we do not trust you. That is the message here tonight. We do not trust you, and the public patients in Australian hospitals do not trust you. We know that, as sure as night follows day, if this mob are re-elected they will take the axe to Medicare. That is why we are putting in this new clause: if the states accept the Commonwealth funding for public hospitals, they will have to accept the new condition that they not impose compulsory hospital charges for in-patient care on eligible persons who elect to be treated as public patients.If you want to make sure there are no charges on public patients in public hospitals, vote for the amendment. If you want to leave open the possibility and want only to trust this minister for health that there will be no charges in public hospitals, vote the Labor Party amendment down. I know what the public patients out there want: they want the belt and braces protection that your mates cannot impose these new hospital fees. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Lee's ) be agreed to.18:35:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. N.M. Dondas)48Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.80Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.4664Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Sitting suspended from 6.41 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills4664r5454664Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:004664McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 is not the sort of bill that should be being rammed through in the last days of the sitting. This is a very bad bill. It is the sort of bill that is the root cause of the loss of faith in the party political system and in the two major parties that is feeding the growth of increased support for minor parties and Independents—the flight to the minor parties. The most recent Morgan poll showed the two major parties' vote at 83 per cent. That flight is much more stark in other countries, so we ought not over-interpret the significance of it, but we know that it is happening. You can see it in this House. You can certainly see it in the Senate. You can see it in the results in almost all the states. You can see it in the opinion polls and you can hear it in the attitude and discussion of people.It is not just that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are losing support amongst Australians. At the end of the day that does not matter. We live in a democracy. If someone else comes up and takes the support, that is what happens. That is the electoral outcome. But if people lose faith in the capacity of the political process properly to resolve their problems, at the end of the day it is very bad for the whole democratic process.We have a bill here which is about putting $45 million over three years into the coffers of political parties from taxpayers. If it were passed, some of that money would go to my party—probably not a very big proportion, but some. We would be better off. We would have some more money for fighting elections. We would have some more money for the administration of the party. But the body politic would be worse off. When I say $45 million, that is not the amount of extra money the political parties will have; that is the cost to the taxpayer of this bill according to the explanatory memorandum. There would be a slight variation from year to year, which I assume is based on some assumption about when the elections are going to be, but over the three years the cost to the taxpayers of extending this political donation tax deductibility will be $45 million.Some of that money will be from corporate donations, some from private donations. You assume that somewhere between $100 million and $130 million of donations will be going to political parties through this system—a minority of that sum to the Labor Party, most to the Liberal Party and the National Party. The one thing I agree with about the bill is that it would extend to Independents the opportunity to have tax deductible donations made to them. If there are going to be such donations, it is proper that they should be extended to those people.But why the urgency of dealing with this bill? We have a serious problem in our electoral laws, a serious loophole, which to its credit the government has said it is going to close, but we are not seeing any urgency about that. That is the so-called Greenfields loophole through which donations are made to the Liberal Party without any disclosure. That is very serious. That loophole does require closing before the next election because it is a major loophole. I welcome the fact that the government is committed to closing it. That is a good thing. It should have closed it already. You could say there is some urgency; we should move to close this loophole before the election. But we see no action on that. Here, where we see that there is massive financial advantage, we suddenly see urgency. We are being pressed to make special arrangements to ensure that this bill will be passed, but it will not be passed with our support. With only a month between the introduction of this bill into the House of Representatives and when it is proposed to commence you wonder what the urgency is. I did not realise the Liberal Party was in such financial difficulties, myself.It is a fundamentally flawed proposal. I know and I understand why—I disagreed but understood at the time—the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters supported this proposal. I did not criticise them then, although I disagreed, and I do not criticise them now, although I disagree. You can understand why at first glance the idea of extending this $100 to $1,500 does not look terrible. For some individuals it will be perfectly reasonable. I am not suggesting that it is about dishonesty. I am very critical—and I have been critical in here before—about Greenfields. I thought and think that is a rort. I do not think there is anything of that avoidance of the law, of that impropriety, here. I just think it is wrong in principle. Here we are in parliament—148 here, 76 up there—saying: `We think the organisations that send us here ought to get more support from the taxpayer.'I would like to go out in the street and ask people what they think, and say: `We have here a proposal to spend an extra $15 million a year of your money. What is the most important way you would like to spend it? You have a few options. One of them is you could help out the Labor Party and the Liberal Party with some big tax deductibility.' I have to say, I do not think that is a winner. I am not talking about a winner in terms of votes on either side because if it is passed we both benefit. What I mean is in terms of the respect people have for the way we as politicians and parliamentarians conduct ourselves and the democratic process; the priorities we set—whether we are a government for their interests or for ours. That is the issue that I think is in contention here.How is this in the public interest? I can see how it is in the Liberal Party's interest, I can see how it is in the National Party's and I can even see—and no-one knowing my background will be surprised—how it is in the Labor Party's interest. What I cannot see is how it is in the national interest and, at the end of the day, that is what we are here for. That is our fundamental obligation.What this bill does is increase the maximum annual tax deductibility threshold for donations to political parties from $100 to $1,500. I never agreed with $100, but there is no mischief in it. It costs almost nothing and, by definition, there are no big donations and there are no big cashflows under it. In principle, I never agreed with it and I am not normally a thin end of the wedge person. People criticised it at the time as thin end of the wedge and I did not think it was, so I did not say much about it. Perhaps I should have and I am as guilty as anybody. But what we have is just in time for the next election, from 1 July this year—a major change to the tax laws with a cost to the revenue of $45 million over three years, and the only beneficiaries are the political parties and Independent candidates.I repeat that, if it is going to happen, I agree with the extension of it to Independents. If we are going to do it, that should be a part of it. I do not think we should do it at all but, certainly, if we are going to do it we should do it in that way. But we are rushing this through and there has been no public scrutiny. I know there was a joint select committee and that is the proper way to go about changing these laws. I support that process. The previous Labor government started it, this government continues it and that is good. A lot of very good agreed changes to the electoral laws come out of that and it does put the process of each election under the sort of scrutiny that it should have. I support all that.I know that the committee and my Labor colleagues supported this. As I said, neither they nor the Liberal Party and other party people on that committee—I do not any longer know the detail of the composition; I do not reflect on those individuals—are going to get any money in their pockets out of this. Whether Labor, National, Independent or whoever, they are not going to be personally advantaged by this. They are not acting in wrongful self-interest, but I think that they have made a mistake which is serious and should not be allowed to recur.This is also going to extend the right of this tax deductibility to corporations from individuals, and I do not agree with that either. Of course, it did not apply when the limit was $100 but it did not matter. It matters now and it should not happen. If this has any rationale—and I think I understand the rationale people put for it—it is about an attempt to empower individuals to say, `What we want is a large number of more small donations instead of a small number of large donations as a diffusion of political power and influence.' I think that is the honest rationale. The secondary rationale is, `Boy, isn't this a lot of money that is going to come into our party coffers.'But underlying that is that legitimate argument and that is why members of the committee—from all parties—supported it. I understand that but I think that gets swamped by the secondary motivation about the dollar signs ringing over there in Blackall Street at the Liberal Party headquarters, about $45 million of tax deductibility and more than $100 million of donations flowing through this tax deductibility, predominantly going to the conservative parties but, I repeat, not only to them.We are not literally changing the electoral laws we are changing the tax act, but we are changing the laws that relate to the way we conduct our political system and our elections rather than closing the egregious loophole that has been pointed out. That is a serious reflection on the priorities of the government. It is a very sad day but, more importantly, it is a very sad day for our political process. We all not only have the national interest to defend but we also come here with an obligation to speak for, act for and defend the standing of the legitimacy of the political process.We all do things that do not help that, most often at question time. I am as guilty as anybody and I do not want to stand here and pretend it is everybody else and not me. Of course we are all here and we are all shouting and doing things.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—Not as guilty as everybody—after all, Duncan's here!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Maybe not as guilty as everybody but I am in there anyway. If you want to have a competition about who is the most guilty, I am prepared to enter it. I probably would not win it but I would not come last. We are all into that and, afterwards, are we sometimes proud of it? No. Does it happen in the theatre of the place every day? Yes, it does and it is a very contagious event.I do not want to pretend everybody is in here every day doing everything with high principles about the long-term impact on people's views about the standing of the parliament, et cetera. We know that sometimes kids come in here. The teachers must have a hell of a hard time keeping discipline in the school after they have all seen us in here. But a lot of times a lot of really great things happen in here too. People get up and make really important speeches about little things and big things that they care passionately about and the cut and thrust of debate takes place. The arguments that are raging in our society are reflected in our parliament and we are able to bring about political, social and economic change peacefully through the democratic process. That is the great thing about our society. Most members, most of the time, apply most of their activity to doing those things and that is good.This bill, if it becomes a part of our taxation laws and part of our structure of funding political parties, will undermine all that good effort by all the members on all sides. It is not a Labor, a Liberal, an Independent or a National thing; we will all suffer. The system will be the worse for all of us if that is to be the case. The public are not stupid. They are much better informed these days. One of the achievements of the previous government of which it was proud was that it made a very significant increase in year 12 retention rates. Why do I mention that in this context? While we were proud of that achievement, we underestimated some of the corollaries of it—many of them not relevant here—with respect to the types of jobs people want and all those sorts of things about aspirations. It changed our society. The constituencies are different.The expectations of young Australians about the political process, their politicians, their government and their governance are very different. They have more access to information. They have more information and they have more education to help them assess and analyse that information. They are not smarter than previous generations, but they are better informed, better educated and they have better access to information. All those things are healthy, but they are a bit demanding sometimes when you are out on the hustings, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Reid, relaxed as you look about this forthcoming election—more than previous ones, if I judge correctly. Nevertheless, having held a marginal seat for a long time, you would know that the voters are getting more demanding. I am sure that is not why you are leaving, Mr Deputy Speaker.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—You're not leaving, are you, Mr Deputy Speaker?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I was not reflecting on his chances of being re-elected. I do not think my facts are inaccurate there, Mr Deputy Speaker, are they? I did not mean in any way to reflect that. We are all facing that, and they will want to know when it becomes public, as it inevitably will, that we saw this as a priority, that we gathered here together at their expense and decided that this was the thing that we particularly wanted to do—so much so that we had a special sitting to deal with it. We would not normally be sitting now, but this bill is listed because it is so important. Some others that the government listed originally that it wanted to pass have dropped off the listRH4KERRMr Kerr—The ones that would have saved Burnie.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Some that are very important for reasons to do with the city of Burnie, according to my colleague the member for Denison. All sorts of bills have dropped off the list, and that always happens. We all make comments about how badly the other side administers the program, but it always happens that there are more bills you want to pass than there is time for, and at the end of the day you have to set some priorities. You have to say, `We wanted to pass X number of bills. We now realise we can only have something less than X, and we therefore have to set some priorities.'Amongst all the bills, the government has chosen the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 . We have not chosen it, and if we had been asked—and it would not be a surprise to know that we never are—we would have said that this is not something that we give priority to. This is not one that we would have put at the top of the list, but it is the government's right to determine what comes into this show. The government has the powers of executive government. It has the right to introduce legislation and to set priorities about what is introduced. We have the right to debate it, to try to change it and, where the numbers give us the opportunity, to try to defeat it if we are opposed to it. But it is a reflection of the government's priorities that they chose this bill.My concern is that, if this bill is passed, there will be a profound adverse reaction in the community. Maybe I should not worry about it, because it will probably be mainly targeted at the government, but that is not my point. No, the election is not going to be won or lost on this bill. No-one is going to change their vote—whenever the election is—because of this, but I think the process will suffer. The party political system will be adversely affected. The standing of the major parties will suffer a setback. The flight to the minors will be enhanced and exaggerated, and that will not be a good thing. If the voters choose to vote for minor parties, that is of course their democratic right, but it is not a healthy sign if they do it because of disillusionment and protest.Those are the things that cause me concern about this bill. The opposition will be opposing this legislation. My colleagues can put their own arguments and express their own approach to this. Many of them have given it a lot of consideration. Many of them served on the committee that made the recommendations, and they will wish to get up and espouse their own case. This is an important bill that we need to deal with. I regard it as an important bill. Therefore, on behalf of the opposition, I make it clear that we will be opposing this bill when, as I assume, we formally vote on it tomorrow morning.20:20:004668Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I must admit that listening to the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) was an interesting exercise. He traversed through a heap of stuff which I did not even know was relevant. I am sure he meant well. Even though he was being very vague, and they tell me he is a very nice fellow when you get to know him—8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—That's very patronising.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—He was a Western Australian originally, so there is a chance of him being half decent. There is a little bit of hope for him. The speech by the member for Canberra was very waffly. I know he was trying to fill in his whole 25 or 30 minutes, but thank God he didn't!I am pleased to speak on this Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 , but I am going to be brief, because I am not going to cover that vast territory. That is not necessary. The aim of this bill is to expand the existing tax deductibility provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The first aspect of the expansion of the provisions of the act, reflected in this bill, that I will talk about will enable tax deductible donations to be made to Independent candidates and all other members on a similar basis. As the member for Canberra said, he is sure that this has made it even fairer—Independent and minor party candidates can be party to this bill.Under this bill Independent candidates and members will be able to receive, for the first time, small to medium tax deductible donations from the public. We do know that $100 was just a farce. This is more realistic. We know that there are many people who donate small amounts of money to candidates and political parties, but we also know that there are people who would like to donate more, and the carrot is that there is some form of defraying the cost of doing so.Deductibility is one aspect which demonstrates that this government is serious about transparency. That is the whole key to this issue: the transparency, the accountability and the honesty which this government gives through this bill. Because Independents will benefit enormously from this bill, it also demonstrates that the government is being fair and demonstrates the equity with which it treats all parties—not just its own, not just the major parties, but smaller parties and Independents. It represents equality of opportunity.Another aspect of this bill is the provision to raise the tax deductibility ceiling, as I have also mentioned, to a sensible level. I am sure that even the member for Canberra, in his sadness about the message that it will send, will say that the general public will realise that this is sensible compared with the $100 which was just a token gesture, because we know that people are willing to donate a lot more. I will move on to that shortly. This is a significant amendment. Clearly, in the past, lower tax deductibility did not encourage individuals to donate financially to their political party of choice. But the ability to donate was always open to unions and in particular to the corporate sector—so we are being balanced—which is larger and has more funds.We are not saying that either party has a mortgage on who donates. We do know that the corporate sector is, by and large, the supporter of the conservative side of government, and we do know that the unions provide enormous amounts of money to the Labor Party. It is a fact of life. But for the individual to donate money to a political party simply was not a viable option, except perhaps for the more comfortably off who were not going to miss large amounts of money. This is where the public gets the perception that donating to political parties is somehow an activity which is not completely desirable or above board because it is almost limited to the larger sectors or the wealthier sectors. The individual was almost left out. It is little wonder that a large section of the public thinks that political donations are the province of the unions and the wealthy—that they have a monopoly and somehow get an advantage out of this.The fact that an individual will now receive more attractive tax treatment with this bill should not be seen as an attempt to buy votes from either side or buy favour from anybody involved but an attempt to level off the playing field. That is the point that needs to made: it does produce this more level situation for all involved.By creating more of an incentive, or, rather, by removing a disincentive to donate, the bill spreads donations by the community far wider amongst individuals, corporations and, do not forget, as I said, the unions—the great collectors on behalf of those sitting opposite. It will also stop the reliance upon unions and business for money. This can only be a good thing for the perception of the public. We are talking about the member for Canberra's perception, so it is not just going to be in the province of those two people; it will encourage and involve more people in the public and the community.This bill is a demonstration of the government's commitment to honesty in government, as we have seen before in the charter of budget honesty. You might recall that the opposition opposed this bill some time ago as they do not appear to be very supportive of bills which give credibility to the government's activities and restore the public's faith in the government's accountability. The member for Canberra said this is not in the national interest. I would have thought anything that was more open and more transparent was in the national interest. It was in that interest to see that fair play and equality were being displayed. I am quite surprised—I must say I am very surprised in fact—and the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) is not paying attention. He is a member of the joint committee which examined this matter and brought forward this recommendation.The unbelievable thing is that this was a unanimous decision from that committee and now the member for Reid and his fellow members of the Labor Party have been rolled by the echelons of the Labor Party on this. They have been done. I think it is highly unusual for a committee to come up with recommendations, to support them unanimously and to walk into this chamber and get rolled. It just shows you where the power is in the party, and it is certainly not with the member for Reid. I am sure he would prefer to be down at the Grange tonight rather than here, but I am sure he is going to stand up and support his people who have told him which way to vote.Anyway, what I find quite unusual is that the Labor candidate for Swan and Labor candidates all around Australia have been putting out in their mail: `Please donate to us to help us fight these elections.' What the opposition are now going to do is to say to the people who may donate to their candidates, `Look, sorry old son, we were going to support you to help ease the burden of you donating to this particular person, but because the member for Reid and his mates got rolled we cannot help you anymore, because we do not agree with the principle for some reason.' The principle that was being espoused by the member for Canberra was quite fallacious. There was not any substance to it, and he was talking about messages being sent to the public. I think the message being sent to the public is that the opposition flip-flop on these issues, depending on who is in charge—who has got to them at the last moment.In this case, it seems to be an absolutely crazy sort of situation in that the opposition had one position a month or two ago, but we find out here tonight from the member for Canberra that they are not going to support it. The rest of the community will soon be able to decide who is being transparent and sensible here.What I find interesting—and I oppose this—is that I believe that the Labor Party is going around at the moment asking for $200 donations on behalf of their members, putting the money into the Labor Party and then giving it back to the wharfies. I ask the member for Reid: is that right? Are you collecting money on behalf of the wharfies? Will this be tax deductible? Will the opposition be ruling out the tax deductibility of this money? They are collecting money on behalf of the wharfies to prop up these poor people on $70,000 to $90,000 a year. Now they are saying, `Oh, this might not be able to be claimed because we are channelling it through the Labor Party and it might not be tax deductible now.' I am sure that the constituents of the member for Reid will not appreciate that.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—It's not deductible for that; you know that.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—You are donating it to the Labor Party—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order! The honourable member for Swan should make his remarks through the chair.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Through the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, they are donating these $200 donations to the Labor Party, and we know that they actually want to give it to the wharfies. I am a bit worried about the tax deductibility of the money they are talking about. As I said, by putting it through the taxation system it is transparent because it has an audit route and people can see what is happening to their funds. This government will not be targeting this practice because, as the member for Canberra said, all members, including opposition members, were supportive of it. The minor parties and the Independents were also supportive of it. They will be interested in receiving the funds that follow.I find it unusual that the Labor Party now say that they are not going to support something that is decent and open to the Australian public. Naturally, I support the bill because it is something that had all-party support. I believe it is something that we could take to the people of Australia and say, `This is open and transparent. You can see that it is a sensible graduation in terms of time moving on and the amounts of money being collected in political campaigns these days.'20:32:004670Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise, as a member of the Labor opposition, to oppose the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 . In doing so, I suggest to the House that this bill is about making it even easier for the Liberal Party to line their own pockets and get money from business. It is being pushed through now to give the Liberal Party an even bigger and more unfair advantage in the coming election campaign than it already has.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am very reluctant to do this but the suggestion has been made that members of the Liberal Party, which presumably includes people in this House, propose to line their pockets with this bill. This is obviously not the intention of the bill. I suspect that, if the member for Batman thought through his remarks, that would not be the intention of his comments. But that is what he said, and I really do take some objection to it. I think it should be rephrased.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—From the remarks that were made by the honourable member for Batman, I did not read that into it. But I will listen very carefully to the honourable member for Batman.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I appreciate that you are following the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I think it is a very important debate. I understand why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) is a bit sensitive about these issues.The recent disclosures to the Australian Electoral Commission by political parties of the donations which they have received makes for very interesting reading. The disclosures show that the coalition received $13.4 million in donations in the financial year 1996-1997. This is nearly 50 per cent more than the ALP received. What is interesting about the list of top donors to the coalition is that the source of this money is deliberately hidden. I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I think it is about time we had a bit of accountability with respect to donations by big business to the coalition government.When you are in government you have to make decisions that affect the community and, more often than not, have an impact on the business activities of a range of companies both within Australia and beyond. I think in any normal democracy it is more than appropriate that transparency apply to donations to political parties. Otherwise, suggestions can be made that all is not above board and that particular companies are being given a rails run on some government decisions and, more importantly, not only might they potentially be given a rails run, but they may have made a secret donation in a clandestine way to the political coffers of the government of the day.These issues are, I believe, the crux of the debate this evening. In that context, I refer to the fact that the three biggest donors to the coalition are associated entities. There are clandestine ways of hiding the donations which are given hand over fist by some in the business community, encouraged and support ed—doors opened in the process—by the Liberal Party's Treasurer, one Mr Ron Walker of Hudson Conway.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Batman is straying from the text of the bill, which relates to tax deductibility of donations and the limit of $1,500.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The issues I raise go straight to the crux of the bill: the question of tax deductibility, accountability and transparency. I think that is more than abundantly clear to anyone who is listening to the debate in an objective way. In that context, can I say that the clubs and foundations to which some of these donations might be made are being set up by the Liberal Party explicitly to enable individuals and companies to channel money to the Liberal Party in secret. This is the nature of the fundraising regime operating under so-called Honest John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia. The Liberal Party is deliberately and deceitfully exploiting loopholes in the Electoral Act. I can understand why the parliamentary secretary has tried so much to shut me up in respect of these issues.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the matters of which the member for Batman complains took place under the regime established by the former government. For him to bring in the Prime Minister and to make such allegations about conduct, firstly, I think offends standing orders 75 and 76 and, secondly, as you suggested earlier, seems to be quite outside the scope of this bill and, therefore, irrelevant to the debate and out of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask the honourable member for Batman to direct his attention to the bill.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I am, very much so, Mr Deputy Speaker. I remind the House that, when the Labor Party developed legislation aimed at ensuring such accountability, the coalition was found wanting when it came to supporting such initiatives. The current Prime Minister was part of the coalition government that made those treacherous decisions with respect to the Australian public. In that context, I believe the real intent of the government with respect to some potential changes and watering down of some of the current provisions is to try to assist in the laundering of funds. I suggest that it is deliberately setting out to thwart that act's intentions to make political donations transparent and subject to tight disclosure laws.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The standing orders prevent offensive statements. They prevent the casting of aspersions on motivations of members and so on. The member has suggested that this is about money laundering. Money laundering is a very serious accusation to make. It is a criminal offence under all sorts of statutes. This is what he is accusing the government of. I think it is quite out of order and should not be allowed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I did note the use of the word `laundering'. I am not quite certain which member that was directed at, but I ask the member for Batman to direct his attention specifically to the bill.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I do not think what I said was directed at any member of the House. I talked about the Liberal Party as an entity being engaged in trying to facilitate laundering of funds, not individual members. I would ask that the parliamentary secretary listen to what is being said rather than imagine that I am in other than a proper way trying to expose potentially what might have gone on in the past or what they want to facilitate in the future.As I have said, the Liberal Party never has had and continues not to have any interest in keeping Australia's national government above a sense of accountability and removing it from any potential accusations of corruption with respect to the funding of elections. Its deceit does not end with the $500 club, the Cormack Foundation and the Free Enterprise Foundation. There is now a new body on the scene. Maybe the problem with the parliamentary secretary is that he has not been invited into the inner realms of that new body. I refer to the mysterious so-called Greenfields Foundation. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can enlighten me by making a contribution as to the background and the intent of the Greenfields Foundation. Or maybe you can enlighten me, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a member of the Liberal Party, even though you are a member of the Liberal Party on the way out.The Greenfields Foundation is closely intertwined with known Liberal Party identities. The Greenfields Foundation has very generously given a massive $4.65 million loan to the Liberal Party in 1996-97. I would like to know what the going interest rate is with respect to that loan. The Australian public does not know the true source of this huge sum of money. It is quite a considerable amount of money—$4.65 million, perhaps on the never never—to the Liberal Party from a so-called Greenfields Foundation. They do, however, know that the loan enabled the Liberal Party to pay off its debts to the National Australia Bank for the cost of the 1996 election campaign. I wonder what other pay-offs have been involved in these transactions, with the Greenfields Foundation, the clubs and the other foundations because of the unwillingness of the Liberal Party to ensure transparency, accountability and public scrutiny of these secret operations.The disclosure of this $4.65 million loan from unknown donors certainly caused a public scandal, with a range of newspapers reporting on it. For example, the Australian Financial Review had a range of articles entitled `Secret foundation look at taking donations'; `Liberals receive a $4.6 million secret loan'; `Liberals use $4.6 million loan to pay off NAB debt'. In the Canberra Times the headlines read `Minister won't detail Greenfields Foundation $4.6 million loan to Libs' and `Beazley slates Libs on use of donations loopholes'. I could go on, but the real intent of the media and the Australian public—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I do not think it would be within the standing orders to pursue that line. The bill, as is quite rightly addressed on the front of the bill, is a bill for an act to amend the law relating to taxation. The honourable member for Batman should speak to the bill.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, it does go to the question of taxation, but it is also in the context of a broader debate which occurred with respect to accountability of donations to political parties.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—And its tax deductibility.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—And its tax deductibility, which is the point I made following your request to make sure that I focus on those issues. It was the very point I made in responding to you: the all important point of tax deductibility.Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have thought in that context that the next piece of legislation concerning electoral donations and tax deductibility would have tried to reduce the potential for hidden private donations. Tax deductibility potentially means a loss of revenue for other government activities. We should not lose sight of that. It is not just a question of donations and of whether or not they are publicly accountable; tax deductibility also means that we are losing potential revenue for other government activities, such as employment services, health, education, the building of roads and railways, our international standing, our capacity to represent Australia overseas in important World Trade Organisation debates and negotiations about access to companies.I would not have thought that the next piece of legislation would increase the scope for business to unduly influence the democratic process even more. Sadly, increasing the power of private interests to unduly influence the public process is exactly what the bill before the House does. The bill proposes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It would increase the maximum annual tax deductibility thresholds for donations to political parties from $100 to $1,500. That I suppose pales into insignificance when you compare it with the loan by the Greenfields Foundation of $4.65 million to the Liberal Party in 1996-1997. But, for a lot of ordinary Australians, $1,500 is a considerable amount of money, especially for those on the growing queue of the long-term unemployed or the growing queue of unemployed youth in Australia at the moment.The changes would allow companies to make tax deductible donations and would broaden the definition of donations to cover contributions as well as gifts. I assume that the parliamentary secretary understands the importance of that.Yesterday in this place, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) ranted and raved about the fact that some trade unions make donations to the Australian Labor Party. The problem was that, in making that contribution, he failed to point out that these donations are up-front, fully, honestly and frankly disclosed under some of the most rigorous accounting requirements in place throughout the length and breadth of Australia—very rigorous accountability requirements and accounting processes set in place by legislation of this parliament. That is in contrast, despite the debate about tax deductibility, to the much larger hidden sums paid by shadowy sources into the parliamentary secretary's party's coffers.The minister also failed to point out that no trade union contributes large enough funds to make the top 50 donors to Australian political parties. The ALP—and it is fairly important when you consider the potential impact of this change with respect to the tax deductibility of donations—attracted only 10 per cent of the largest financial contributions made to political parties in 1996-97.It is clear who the big winners are from unaccountable, undemocratic loopholes in the laws governing political donations. I do not think the changes with respect to the tax deductibility embodied in the bill before us this night are actually going to facilitate overcoming those hidden opportunities. I suppose that is why the Liberal Party is, as it has always been, the party overwhelmingly supported by capital. It is certainly no friend to the battler. It is beholden to big business, as its support of the GST shows. I wonder about the impact of tax deductibility, for example, on a major company such as Amcor, whose chairman, one Mr Stan Wallis, is currently very intimately involved with the federal government.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I do not know that the member is speaking to the bill in this respect.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I am going to some of the donations and the potential impact of this change in tax deductibility on these corporate donations—totally in order.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This bill gives tax deductibility on donations up to $1,500. How can the statement that we anticipate the member for Batman will make on this subject possibly be within the standing orders? It has nothing to do with the $1,500 tax deductibility limit that is under consideration.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will be directing my attention to the remarks that the honourable member for Batman makes in respect of the statement he just made. I will be listening carefully to it.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As I understand it, there is some concern in the corporate world that the $1,500 tax deductibility limit is not as high as they wanted. That is evident when you actually look at some of those donations. For example, with respect to Amcor—of which Mr Stan Wallis is out there currently rallying up big business support to back financially the GST campaign of the Prime Minister—$1,500 would be a bit short when you consider the following donations. In 1992-93, for example, Amcor donated $100,000 to the coalition, and to the Australian Labor Party it donated $30,000.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Batman is going well outside the limit of the bill, which speaks of a $1,500 limit on deductions.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It must be in order to argue whether or not a measure in a bill is appropriate. It may be inappropriate because of its being set at too high or too low a level. What the member is doing is exploring why this particular proposal does not deserve the support of this House and giving instances of issues that are relevant to it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman should direct his attention to the content of the bill, which is very precise in its undertaking and its administration. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I want to explore the potential impact of this bill in a wide-ranging way because the Australian public is listening to this debate and they are concerned about the potential impact of the bill. They know that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with supporting a demand that the opposition actually demand accountability with respect to donations to the government of the day. That is why I suggest to the House that this bill clearly proves that the coalition parties have made no commitment to cleaning up the Electoral Act.I can assure the House that the Labor Party has this commitment. We will continue our campaign to close the loopholes in the law which are now being exploited by the unscrupulous coalition government. For example, take Amcor's 1996-97 donation to the coalition of $135,000 against its donation to the Australian Labor Party of $40,000. I think the coalition ought to properly explain whether or not any other donations by a company such as Amcor are given through some of those other secret arrangements they have in place such as the Greenfields Foundation.For that very reason, we will continue our campaign to close the loopholes. We will endeavour to stop the Liberal Party flouting the electoral disclosure laws. We will ensure tight and transparent laws regulating disclosure of political donations rather than opening the floodgates further, as this bill seeks to do.I understand the need for accountability. It is not just donations to political parties that concern the Australian public but also, I suppose, discounts given to politicians and whether or not those discounts are potentially tax deductible. I refer to an interesting article on page 6 of the Herald Sun of 7 May 1996 which reports on a $43,000 discount given by Hudson Conway to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. It also reports that not long after that discount was given the actual apartment was worth $75,000 more—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Batman is straying well outside the terms of this legislation.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Thank you for drawing my attention to ensuring that there is full accountability and disclosure in this House, the people's house, with respect not only to tax deductibility of donations but also to secret discounts given to ministers of the government. As I said, the bill is attracting a lot of public attention. It is not just about tax deductibility; it is about accountability. It is about ensuring that secret donations become fully accountable and transparent to the Australian public.The Australian public has had enough of secret arrangements in foundations such as the Greenfields Foundation or the free enterprise club. They want to know that what is on the table is there for the public to see, that there are no secret donations and secret arrangements—nods and winks—by which people will benefit. (Time expired)20:52:004675Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—The member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) made a curious speech, but it had nothing to do with the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 and it certainly had almost nothing to do with the reality of donations to political parties in this country.I am reminded of Bob Menzies' final press conference where he was asked by a cheeky journalist, `What do you have to say, Prime Minister, about the powerful interests which have controlled you through your political career?' and he said, `How dare you bring my wife into this.' Listening to the member for Batman, one would think that the Liberal Party was being manipulated by some kind of shadowy business interests. It is not true, it never has been true and it certainly is not going to be true whilst ever I have anything to do with the Liberal Party.This bill is about increasing the tax deductibility of political donations from $100 a year to $1,500. It is not about vast corporate donations, absolutely not, and it is not about non-disclosure. The Liberal Party—this government—perfectly supports the disclosure principle and we are not seeking at all to increase the tax deductibility beyond $1,500. Sure, as the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) said, this measure will have the effect of increasing, in a sense, public subsidy towards political parties, but it will have the effect of supporting all political parties, as the member for Canberra had the grace and decency to accept in his speech.What the member for Canberra neglected to point out was that it was the former Hawke Labor government which first brought in public funding for political parties. It was the Hawke Labor government which brought in a public funding regime which now, I think, ensures that about $40 million per election campaign go to the various political parties. What we have here is a serious attempt at double standards by members opposite.The member for Canberra said with a degree of sincerity that measures like this bring the parliament and politicians into disrepute. I do not think measures like this bring the parliament into disrepute. I think what brings the parliament into disrepute is the kind of cheap smear that we have just had from the member for Batman. The member for Batman tried to suggest that politicians—members of this parliament, ministers in this government and presumably ministers in governments generally—are susceptible to improper influence from people who buy that influence by making donations to political parties. That simply is not true. Members opposite who have been members of governments know that donations are made from all sorts of sources.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You live in cloud cuckoo land.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—The honourable member for Banks shall cease interjecting.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—And it does not, in any way, compromise the integrity of governmental processes. The member for Batman pointed out that Amcor donated $135,000 to the Liberal Party in the last electoral cycle and he also pointed out that that self-same company donated $40,000 to the Labor Party—the Labor government. Is the member for Batman suggesting that that $40,000 bought government decisions? I hope he is not. I do not suggest that it did, but if the $40,000 which Amcor gave to the Labor Party did not buy government decisions, why is the member for Batman degrading and debasing this House and his colleagues in this House by suggesting that $135,000 does buy the Liberal Party? It just is not true. The member for Batman knows it and he demeans himself by making these sorts of statements.As the member for Banks has been interjecting across the table, democracy does not come cheap. Any of us who have been involved in election campaigns know just how dearly bought democracy is these days. It probably costs upwards of $20 million for the major political parties to run their campaigns. In a marginal seat, it probably costs something like $100,000 to $200,000 to run a campaign. It is an enormous amount of money which has to be raised from somewhere. Let's face it, healthy political parties are the muscle and sinew of an effective Westminster style democracy. This bill is designed to ensure that all political parties have the wherewithal with which to continue.Let us consider for a moment what may well be the real motivation behind some of the contributions of members opposite. Why are they so hostile to this whole idea of tax deductibility of donations to political parties? The simple truth is that the Labor Party receives vast amounts of money from the trade union movement. The trade union movement, as far as I am aware, is essentially organised on a not for profit basis and therefore the union movement does not pay tax. In other words, the Labor Party's donors do not pay tax; the Liberal Party's donors, by and large, do pay tax. This is a simple measure on the part of members opposite to try to hamstring one side of politics. It is quite transparent in that sense. If members opposite want to object to this bill, by all means let them do so, but let them be open and up front. Let them be as transparent about their motivations as they wish donations to political parties to be.ALP members of the standing committee that made this recommendation got it right. They understand how politics really works. They know the need for incentives to be given to people to donate to political parties. They understand that this measure is something which is necessary to benefit the politi cal process generally. They got it right. Why are members opposite now getting it so wrong? Why have members opposite abandoned the decency and the conscientious convictions of their colleagues on this committee? I can only assume that with an election imminent they are getting desperate.21:00:004676Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—At the outset, I express my strong support for one ingredient of this legislation, and that is the funding for independent candidates. Unfortunately, as we are quite aware at the moment, the public is distrustful of politicians in general. Whilst I do not condone people leaving major parties out of self-interest rather than because of ideological or very fundamental policy differences, it has been inequitable and it has been unfair that funding has been allocated to the major political parties alone. If we are talking about democracy, if we are talking about the representation of people and giving them options in regard to democracy, it is more than reasonable that those candidates who are Independents receive funding. We know we have had some representatives, like the previous member for North Sydney, who have made fairly major contributions both at a federal and a state level in regard to the public knowledge of politicians and the exposure of some of the things that actually do concern the public. I want to very strongly support that ingredient of the legislation, because it is something that not only is necessary but also will give confidence to the Australian electorate that the system is not totally controlled by power brokers at the top and that funding is not totally at the behest of the self-interest of the major political parties.In regard to the overall thrust of this legislation, I think there is a very fundamental flaw in it. The nearest thing I can remember to this attempt is collusion between the Liberal, National and Labor parties in the state parliament of New South Wales in regard to increased superannuation payments when that was debated in the middle of the night. This legislation comes through at the end of the budget process, with a total focus upon that and the Queensland elections. It is being put in here today in the last days of this particular session and, quite frankly, it is of concern in a very real sense. I for one am very pleased, as a member of the relevant committee, that the party has been persuaded to oppose this legislation. We should have opposed it from the beginning. What has changed the focus in our party has been the revelations in regard to the Greenfields Foundation, which certainly became very public after the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.I should put on the public record that the figure of $1,500 was essentially a compromise. There has not been too much coverage by government speakers tonight of the original proposal of the government parties. They were not looking for $1,500; they looking for $10,000. That was the proposal of the parties opposite. Tonight when they say to us, `Oh well, $1,500 is not too much,' this is only the foot in the door.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—You guys made it $100.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—I am not disputing $100; I think it is quite reasonable.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—That was the first foot in the door.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The smart comment over here is that there is some analogy, some comparison, between a person in this country giving $100 and a person in Granville, Guildford or Merrylands giving $10,000. There would not be a person in my electorate who would think about giving $1,000, let alone $10,000. To say that that $100 was basically a big step towards what the Liberal Party proposed is wrong. They proposed that corporations—we are extending it to companies here—should be able to deduct $10,000. I think that gives the lie to this thrust tonight that this is only a minor gradation or a minor increase, that you really do not have to be disturbed; it is not aimed at the corporate sector, it is not aimed at allowing heavy corporate inputs.Let us look at the pattern of donations. In an article entitled `The Big Tilt' in the magazine The American Prospect of May-June 1997 we see the reality of campaign funding. This applies to Australia as well as to the United States. It reads:The 3 percent of the sample with family incomes over $125,000 are responsible for 4 percent of the votes, 5 percent of the protest, 6 percent of the contacts with members, 8 percent of the hours devoted to campaigning and fully 35 percent of the money contributed.In other words, the wealthiest three per cent contribute 35 percent of election donations. It continues:At the other end of the income scale are the 19 percent of the sample with family incomes under $15,000. They are responsible for only 14 percent of the votes, 13 percent of the hours volunteered in the campaigns and 12 percent each of the contacts and protests. And when it comes to making electoral contributions, they are barely visible, donating only 2 percent of campaign dollars.So the fact of life is that the average person really does find it a struggle to make any contribution. I have not seen any comparative figures in this country—I do not think they have been constructed—but the poorest 19 per cent in America, a big percentage of the population, are giving two per cent of donations.I referred in a previous contribution to an article in the Economist which says that a fundamental problem in regard to electoral funding is that it is always catch-up politics. Quite clearly, in this country we always have a problem of catch-up politics, catching up to the last conspiracy of the coalition parties. We know that we have constantly had to adjust electoral funding laws in this country. We had to go through the process of associated entities. We had to tackle the legislation, look at it again, because what they were doing was basically having a company or a foundation, call it what you will, over in left field that supposedly had nothing to do with the Liberal Party, regardless of how close the personnel were, how close the post office boxes were, how close the phone numbers were and regardless of people's careers previously in the Liberal Party. It was said to be just a coincidence that all these connections were there, that they had nothing to do with the Liberal Party, yet we find them making very substantial massive donations to the coalition and more particularly the Liberal Party.There had to be reform of the legislation, there had to be changes and there had to be catch-up politics. This is the constant story in this country's electoral funding legislation— once you close one loophole, they have found another way through. The latest thing is that they say that someone walked up to them and gave the Liberal Party a $4.6 million loan.It was nothing to do with Liberal Party, no connections—someone just gave them a loan.Let's be serious. The Australian public knows that this is just the latest method—the latest manoeuvre, the latest subterfuge—to undermine public scrutiny of electoral funding in this country. This is a situation where the public wants to know if a party has a philosophy of subcontracting out or wants to sell out large sectors of government. This is supposedly driven by ideology, and when you get to these funding laws you question whether it is really ideology rather than an IOU. We hear about those kinds of government practices in the defence area every second day, where they want to basically sack people in the Australian defence forces and subcontract, sublet or contract out. One has to question whether part of this is driven by these unknown donors.The only reason ever heard for this—and it is quite surprising that there are not a few other reasons—is that people are too scared to be made public. Supposedly they are going to be somehow victimised by the union movement or whatever. I do not know of any other reasons why it has to be so secretive. We have a minister here—he is a bit down in the dumps these days—who said that he changed the laws of this country on industrial relations so that industrial disputation would be reduced. Essentially it was all solved, everyone could have individual contracts and the power of the unions was broken. One has to question why, in the context of his major successes and his ability to clamp down on the union movement, they are still trying to have constant secrecy by setting up foundations and manoeuvres in a way that the Australian public can have no knowledge of who is donating to them.Why is there such secrecy? Why can't we say if there is a decision about the Australian mineral industry or if parts of social security are going to be contracted out and the private operators brought in? Why can't we say that the labour hire companies are going to come in? Patrick Stevedores and the National Farmers Federation are going to basically come into the waterfront. Why can't the public know, in their consideration of this policy, this legislation and this government position, that there is a possibility—even though it may be erroneous—that there was some influence brought to bear in relation to that decision making?We are seeing a widening of the availability of people to donate very substantial amounts of money. We could see a scenario whereby large corporations allow a number of executives or people intimately connected with their company to go to dinners or other fundraising events and to claim it individually. Essentially we are talking about a series of indirect donations by the same entity. They are getting to a situation, with 10 of them, where they can deduct $15,000—even more than what the Liberal Party intended in the first place. This is a sham attempt to get $10,000 deductible.This legislation is very much a concern. If the government is losing too much sleep about the fact that some Labor Party members on this committee have got a different point of view as to when the matter was discussed, I put to you that the $1,500 was a compromise at that stage in regard to a government thrust for a preposterous level of $10,000.The decision has to be seen in the context of the very public revelations about the Greenfields Foundation: that the opposition cannot trust this government in relation to electoral funding in this country. It is something that we should be able to sort out together. We should be able to say that the public has a right to know. It is going to further undermine public confidence, it is going to make people ask why this legislation was brought in, it is going to allow corporate donors to have a bigger say about policy and it is going to let them have a bigger impact in relation to both political parties. Let's be honest about it. There is a possibility they are going to be encouraged to give greater donations in this way.Also, $15 million is going towards this, and this is in the context of the constant whingeing complaints of the government that they do not do this or that in this country any longer because they were left such a mess by the previous government. Here is a chance to avoid wasting $15 million on an exercise that is designed to increase the possibility of corporations calling the tune in a variety of policy areas. This money could be spent elsewhere. It is an undesirable move; it was part of a broader government thrust. When they bemoan the fact that Labor has moved off about this position, I want to remind the government members of this committee that, if we go back through the committee's proceedings, there are a lot of other very popular recommendations in regard to voluntary voting and other radical changes to our voting system which are aimed to cushion the government's electoral possibilities that they have abandoned in the light of day.21:12:004679Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Before I make my remarks on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 , I would like to advise the honourable member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) that, if the government really wanted to save money, it would abandon public funding of elections. If you added that to the $15 million, there would be something there.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Public funding is about honesty and integrity in office.ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—In that case, tax deductibility is another way of going about it and it might be said to be the same. This bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow taxpayers to make tax deductible contributions of $2 or more to registered political parties—including those registered under state or territory legislation—up to a maximum level of $1,500 annually; to allow taxpayers to make tax deductible gifts to Independent candidates and members—also up to maximum level of $1,500 annually—and to allow deductibility for donations made by companies.These amendments will implement part of the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the JSCEM, on the 1996 federal election. The amendments are proposed to apply to contributions and gifts made from 1 July 1998. As an Independent member of this House and an Independent candidate at the next election, I—or, more accurately, donors to my campaigns—clearly have an interest in this bill. As the law stands, donations to my campaigns and to the campaigns of my Independent colleagues cannot be deducted for tax purposes. The same also applies to Independent members in state parliaments. They along with all other candidates at an election must surely, as a matter of justice and equity, be in the same position as their main opponents, who are usually drawn from the ranks of the major parties.I have submitted to this House during other debates that it is a matter of simple equity that any donors to my campaign—provided the donations do not exceed the limit stipulated for registered political parties, which is currently $100—should benefit from tax deductibility. The present situation is something of an anachronism. It is understandable that, prior to the recommendation of the JSCEM and the introduction of this bill, it has not been in the minds of the major parties to ensure that donations to the campaigns of Independents should benefit from tax deductibility. I believe that, if the issue had not been pressed by me or by one of my Independent colleagues, it is likely that—even though what my colleagues and I submitted to the JSCEM and have urged before this House is fair and just—it would never have been dealt with in this place.The present government certainly recognised the inequity, even though it took its time about rectifying it. On 20 October 1997, during question time I asked the Treasurer (Mr Costello) whether he agreed that an inequity existed in the treatment of tax deductibility for political donations. I then asked the Treasurer whether he concurred with the recommendation of the JSCEM that the inequity be rectified. The response of the honourable gentleman was to concede that I had what he described as a `conceptual point'. I differ with him on that—it is far from conceptual. He said:I suppose you could say at a conceptual level that there should be an equivalence of treatment. I am pleased to see that the government's in-principle agreement has now taken solid form.But a further inequity regarding Independent candidates persists. It is indistinguishable in the underlying logic from tax deductibility for donations to Independent candidates' campaign funds. Section 304A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides that each candidate in an election shall disclose details of all gifts above a value of $200 that he or she has received—and substitute `campaigns' for that if you wish—during the disclosure period for an election. For House of Representatives elections the same rules apply to all candidates, regardless of whether they are endorsed by a registered political party. So far, so fair.However, gifts may of course also be made to registered political parties and not to individual candidates. At the end of a financial year, a registered political party must lodge a return setting out amounts received by the party during the previous year. However, if the total of all gifts received by the party from one person or organisation is less than $1,500, the party is not required to include the particulars of that donation in its return.Clearly, a candidate who is endorsed by a registered political party does not really need to receive and account for campaign gifts in the same way that an Independent candidate does. Indeed, if a party candidate does receive a qualifying donation, the amount is usually not declarable because almost invariably the obligation to do that accrues to the relevant political party. Also, endorsed candidates will have money spent on their behalf by their party.So it is that donations to Independents are required to be identifiable as being to individual campaigns whereas those who donate to the campaign funds of individual endorsed party candidates are not so identifiable, because the sums received are included in a consolidated return lodged by the respective party headquarters. Therefore, the source of a donation to an endorsed party candidate of up to $1,499 will not be identifiable as such and not even declared, but donations to Independent campaigns of $200 or more must be declared. Since the government has shown, through the words of the Treasurer and by its action in introducing this bill, that it is concerned about equivalence of treatment of endorsed and Independent candidates, I trust that it will take steps necessary to rectify this other anomaly.It must be assumed that disclosure rules are there for a good reason. However, the source of a donation to an endorsed party candidate of up to $1,499 will not have to be declared, but donations of $200 or more to Independent campaigns must be. There is no reason why all candidates should not be treated equally in terms of the disclosure requirements. I suggest that either the threshold above which all candidates are required to disclose gifts should be raised from $200 to the $1,500 limit applying to political parties or the threshold for political parties should be lowered to the level imposed on donations to the campaign funds of Independent candidates. I suspect the latter would not find favour with the parties, but they cannot refute the equity of the principle involved.In closing, I congratulate the government on the introduction of these changes to the tax deductibility for donations to the campaigns of Independents and I urge that very same government to consider commensurate measures to rectify the other inequities in the electoral laws to which I have referred. To that end, tax legislation is not the appropriate instrument. It would indeed be an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.21:22:004680Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I rise to oppose the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 . But before I get into the detail of the bill I cannot help noticing that in this experiment with putting the Hansard reporters around the place they are in the far back row of the press gallery tonight. Frankly, Hansard are in a different position to the press—they report accurately. And they fix our mistakes; they do not amplify them. I look forward to the day when Hansard are in their proper place on the floor of the House, at the table where they should always be—where history and convention dictate they should be. I say that for the benefit of listeners.I come to this debate as someone who served on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters during my first six years in the parliament—from 1990 to 1996. I enjoyed my time on that committee. I am not on the current parliamentary committee; I am on three other parliamentary committees and as shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs I have my hands full. But this debate is important and that is why I feel compelled to speak. The bill that we are debating is a scam. It is a scam on the taxpayers. It is a scam that was introduced very late into this parliamentary session—on 28 May 1998. If this bill goes through it is going to cost the taxpayers some $45 million dollars in the space of three years—$18 million in 1999-2000, $12 million in 2000-01 and $15 million in 2001-02. Those figures are on page 1 of the explanatory memorandum in relation to this bill.I can think of many better things to do with $45 million over three years. The money could certainly be spent in the area of indigenous health or education instead of lining the pockets of donors to political parties. I was on the parliamentary committee that recommended the current position, which is a vastly different position. It allows tax deductions to an annual level of $100. Some of us had reservations back when we were debating that, but one of the reasons we relented was that $100 is not a large amount. A $100 deduction may encourage people to join political parties. The membership of political parties can be tax deductible. That is part of the political process and it can be done at little cost to the public.But this is a scam allowing tax deductibility to the amount of $1,500. It is interesting to note that before the parliamentary committee the Liberal Party recommended an amount of $10,000 be tax deductible. Frankly, this is a fundraising scam on the part of the government for their corporate mates. They have the Freedom Foundation and the 500 Club. We cannot even find out where the $4.5 million loan to pay off the NAB debt came from. Under this proposal they can get their corporate mates to pay $1,500 a head for dinner and not only do they get their feed and their speech from our ever diminishing Prime Minister (Mr Howard), but their $1,500 fee for the fundraiser is tax deductible. That is red hot.I do not want the best politicians money can buy. I do not want to go down the American path or the Japanese road. There is corruption in those systems. Some might argue that this is an anti-corruption measure. It is not an anti-corruption measure. It is putting the weights on particular sections of the community to come along and cough up at taxpayers' expense. It is an arm twisting exercise for the apparatchiks and the bagmen.Senator Minchin, the Special Minister of State, who has carriage of this matter, is one of the few competent ministers in this government. It is his ideology that worries me. In terms of the republic, he is the minister against the republic. In terms of native title, he is the minister to tear down native title. In this area he is the minister to get them re-elected. That is what this is about. It is a scam to apply from 1 July 1998 to allow the Liberal Party to get involved in a fund raising venture with their business mates at taxpayers' expense.A better and more transparent way of doing it is in relation to what is happening at the moment. In the last parliament there were recommendations and the various political parties got funding to the level of the votes they received—not only in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate—and it was equitable. Lest it be thought this is a bean counting measure, I have no problem with the public funding of political campaigns provided there is transparency in the campaigns, consistency and principles. Donating to political parties is fine, but there should be disclosure mechanisms, not tax deductibility mechanisms. I have no problem with people donating whatever amount of money it is for political parties to follow their political philosophy. But those donations should not be made tax deductible to the extent that this government seeks to make them. I note with regard to my friend the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) that I was disappointed that even the ALP members had recommended this $1,500. But it was a compromise because the government was seeking $10,000 tax deductibility.If you have a problem with funds let us have some transparency and uniformity. This is the way to do it: if you want to increase the amount by the price of a postage stamp, that is a more principled way of doing it. I do not want it said that we started this by allowing that figure of $100 to be a tax deduction. That is in a different league. In relation to membership fees it is a minuscule sort of amount that does allow Independents and other minor parties to do some fundraising.But this is a scam. You could have a bit of intimidation of employees of large companies, your SES service and a whole range of things. In relation to this campaign you have whole levels of staffers, consultants and SES officers that you can exploit. In goes the $1,500 and it is tax deductible. So you have the whip-around. The party apparatchiks, by putting a levy of $1,500 on staffers, or whatever, can create a whole new scam that is underwritten by the taxpayer. That is how they do it. When they increase the size of donations before it is allowed to be disclosed, you spread the money. You get companies purchasing a series of tickets for their employees. That is why this is not the proper way to do it.I do not think there is a shortfall for this government, because it attracts every spiv and carpetbagger and the white shoe brigade with its policies. We are flogging off our assets. Who is getting them? The poor old NAB helped the government write off its debt and what was going to happen? They were going to get access to the super funds but that hit the fence in the Senate the other week. That is what worries me about this—the self-interest of it. It is the best backed horse in the race for this government. It is about downsizing. It is the same here; it is for their mates. This is about tax deductibility for the mates of the tories. There will be a whip-around at the Melbourne Club and all the others. Frankly, if they have a commitment to the tories, then they can donate their fifteen hundred bucks without getting tax deductibility. I would rather that money go to the unemployed or to maintain child care.I repeat: $45 million over three years, an average of $15 million a year of taxpayers' money, and that is just an estimate. It is untenable. That is why a bit of sanity prevailed here. When this matter came before the parliamentary party and the caucus we did not have any trouble saying: `We are not going to go along with this scam.' On a number of occasions there has been cross-party support in relation to electoral matters and we have copped criticism from the press—some right, some wrong. I think we probably have one of the better electoral systems in this country, with compulsory voting, public funding and a whole range of things. The Australian Electoral Commission is probably second to none. But there comes a time when enough is enough. This is the area where a line has to be drawn in the sand because it is pretty obvious that there is incrementalism with this government. We will go to $1,500, then it will be $10,000 or whatever.If people want to kick in fifteen hundred bucks to the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, then let them do it at their expense—no strings attached. The taxpayer already underwrites our electoral system in terms of funding. That is worked out on a proper formula and the Democrats, Independents and others are looked after. I support that system. I do not want to have to go cap in hand as a member of parliament around the labour movement or anywhere else to put the weights on to get the $1,500 for a special dinner or whatever. It is wrong. It is not necessary.Indeed, that is what worries me about this government. They talk about transparency, they talk about value for the dollar, a whole range of things, but not when it comes to self-interest. And that is what this is about, self-interest for the big end of town, so they can have the whip-around with their mates because only their mates can come across with the $1,500. The labour movement is struggling to keep the jobs of its constituency at the moment. Those on the factory floor are losing their jobs. It is middle and senior management and the senior executive service whose salaries are going through the roof—the bosses. This is a bosses' clause. It is a clause for the rich, who are so mean-spirited that they cannot kick in fifteen hundred bucks for the tories without the taxpayer turning it into a tax deduction. That is the problem with our tax system. All the spivs and carpetbaggers and family trusts are in there right up to their necks with this government—tax minimisation, tax avoidance. This is consistent with the philosophy of the tories.BI4MILESMr Miles—What's this about? R&D syndication?4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—The minister at the table—or the parliamentary secretary, I am sorry; he is not a real minister, he is a parliamentary secretary, who is entitled to the position as he is a pen pusher and signs his name—talks about R&D. I will tell you what R&D did. It encouraged investment. They are not the mates of the Labor Party. R&D is about jobs. There is no incentive. The government do not need tax deductibility if their policies are working for their side of town. They would be lining up to give them fifteen hundred bucks without tax deductibility. It shows how bad this government and this Prime Minister are going when they need the incentive of tax deductibility to get fifteen hundred bucks out of their mates. Because that is what this is about. Their mates are so mean-spirited and always looking to minimise tax that they are not prepared to kick in the fifteen hundred bucks. They want the taxpayer to underwrite it—socialise your losses, the agrarian socialists in the National Party. It is just not consistent that a conservative government, worried about taxpayers' dollars, worried about transparency, says one thing and does another.BI4MILESMr Miles—This was a unanimous report.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—The parliamentary secretary at the table talks about a unanimous report. What is the position? Are we as a parliamentary party and as a caucus supposed to accept all the parliamentary reports? I listened to my good friend the member for Reid and he says it was basically a compromise. I know his views. I know my views. When I was on the parliamentary committee this would not have got past first base.The decision of the parliamentary party, which is the right one, is that we are not going along with this scam. And it is a scam. If you want your mates to donate $1,500 for your next election, then do not worry about getting the taxpayer to underwrite it—go out and do the hard yards. If you go out there and tell them how good your policies are and do it on a policy basis, you will not need tax deductibility. But they need it because they have nothing to offer the electorate or their constituencies, except another scam to minimise tax.BI4MILESMr Miles—Low interest rates, no debt.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Again, I will respond to the parliamentary secretary because he talks about low interest rates. They are a vote of no confidence in this government because they have comatosed the economy. Interest rates now have to go down because they have to breathe life into the corpse that this government has created. It is not about saying, `Look how great interest rates are.' You have to have a job to be able to have a mortgage to pay off a house. I would have thought unemployment would have been the big one.We have this feigned indignation by those on the other side of the House. This is $45 million of taxpayers' money. We had a scam of a special auditor for ATSIC because we had all of these allegations of indigenous organisations wasting the money or whatever. The Federal Court threw the special auditor out three-nil. But what did it show? That the overwhelming majority of those organisations were honest; there was no corruption there. They needed some assistance in training. There was a problem with red tape. But there is always a scam in it in terms of this government. You do not look at it on its merits. The parliamentary secretary is so effective that the Burnie workers lost their jobs today! That is how much the bosses listen to him.It is a pleasure to get up and oppose this because this typifies the choice at the next election. Only a conservative government could bring this sort of stuff into the parliament with a straight face. We are engaged in a struggle, and it is a class struggle at the moment. It is only their supporters who can afford the $1,500 to kick in for the tax deduction. That is what it is about—their mates. This is a bill for their mates.This country has a big choice at the next election and it really is about which direction we are taking our country in. We have an ever-diminishing Prime Minister. This is about this government using the advantage of office, attempting to use the tax system for their benefit. I say: if you want transparency in the arrangement then do it on a per voter basis. If you want to increase the level of donation to a political parties, do it. Test your strength in terms of the votes that you can attract. That is transparent, it is principled and it is uniform. But this backroom deal where we are going to give tax deductibility so that the party apparatchiks can go out and bend everyone's elbow to get them to kick in the $1,500 is all this will encourage. That is not transparent and that is not good for the system because it makes us, as parliamentary representatives, prisoners. That is why I believe in the principle of public funding because, as parliamentarians, we do not want the best parliamentarians that money can buy, and that is what this is about. Senator Minchin has been the architect of this. He is a competent minister but a party apparatchik whose brief is to get the government re-elected at minimum cost to the tories. (Time expired)21:42:004684Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill is a sinister try-on and follows an ambit claim in the committee which considered it in the first place. I thought that the member for Banks (Mr Melham) covered the issues extremely well and set out in a very stark way the sorts of choices that are in front of us. But I did want to take issue with one of the points he was making. He was expressing the view that this shows that the rich are mean-spirited and too lousy to make a donation to the Liberal Party without the incentive of a tax deduction. I would suggest that it is really not so much a reflection on those who are well to do but rather a reflection on the Liberal Party that it is unable to attract donations on any other basis. Indeed, why would you? Why would you give them even a hundred dollars? But why would you give them $1,500 without the tax deductibility when you have a government which has been so incompetent and has made such a mess of the major issues confronting this nation that it has become a laughing stock?We have seen the nursing home accommodation fiasco, we have seen the way they have handled waterfront reform, we have seen the superannuation debacle with the government in there ringbarking the superannuation tree that Labor planted, we have seen a cabinet in disarray, we have seen the travel rorts, and we have seen more ministers go and more cabinet attrition than we have seen since the Stalin cabinet in the 1920s. So if you are a well-to-do person you might be excused, without the incentive of tax deductibility, for saying, `No, I do not think I will make a contribution to this government. I really do not think that it represents money well spent.'This bill proposes a number of amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act. It is intending to increase the maximum annual tax deductibility threshold for donations to political parties from $100 to $1,500, a 15-fold increase—a major increase by any yardstick. Secondly, and just as importantly, it proposes to allow companies to make tax deductible donations. You might think that it is no bad thing for individuals to make donations and to contribute to the democratic process, but the idea that companies contribute to the democratic process and that they have some interest which ought to be reflected by according them tax deductibility is not something that I can support.The bill proposes to broaden the definition of `donation' to cover contributions as well as gifts. It proposes to bring donations to independent candidates in line with political parties and it proposes to allow for tax deductible donations to be made to political parties registered under state or territory electoral legislation. It is proposed to come into effect from 1 July this year—very soon, very quickly and very conveniently, one might suspect, from the point of view of a government which seems all too intent on a dash for the polls before too long.As earlier speakers in the debate have made plain, this is an essentially political issue. The considerations which are at stake here are political ones. We have a government which is seeking to gain political advantage for itself. The bill has been introduced on the eve of an election. The government is endeavouring to ram it through on that election eve to assist it in its election efforts and for no other reason. Indeed, the government's second reading speech sums up why we ought to be opposing this bill. It makes reference to:. . . an increase in the threshold will encourage small to medium donations, thereby increasing the number of Australians—including companies—involved in the democratic process and reducing a political party's reliance on a small number of large donations.So the government's intention is absolutely plain. The government's intention is that the Liberal and National parties ought to be advantaged in the coming election.The budget figures also give the game away. There are indications in the budget figures that this measure will cost $15 million. On a rough and ready assessment of that, the government is looking to have some $45 million donated via this process—via the donations loophole which has opened through this process—at the expense of the taxpayer. It is always interesting to come in here and hear the government say, `Look, the tax system has had it. It's full of holes, so we've got to bring in a GST. Too bad for the poor old retired people who are going to have to pay more on their food and more on the essentials of life, but the tax system has had it. There are too many leaks; we can't plug them all,' and here it is opening up the loophole for tax deductibility for donations by companies.Let us have a look at where the donations from companies, aided by a tax deductibility, might go. I refer to evidence brought forward for the 1996-97 financial year concerning donations. These were reported in a couple of places, including the Herald Sun and the Financial Review. The report in the Herald Sun was clear enough—`Corporate Australia has thrown its financial weight behind the Liberal Party'. Official figures released showed that the coalition attracted nearly $27 million in 1996-97 compared to the Labor Party's $19 million. When you look at a lot of the companies and trusts involved, the difference is very severe indeed. For example, the ANZ Bank donated $125,000 to the Liberal Party and $20,000 to the Labor Party. Amcor donated $130,000 to the Liberal Party and $40,000 to the Labor Party. Hoyts donated $51,000 to the Liberal Party and $12,5000 to the Labor Party. They were modest compared to Village Roadshow. Village Roadshow donated $202,850 to the Liberal Party and around 10 per cent of that, $23,000, to the Labor Party.There were other companies that did not bother to engage in even token balancing. Santos donated $153,000 to the Liberal Party and nothing to the Labor Party. HIH Insurance donated $126,000 to the Liberal Party and nothing to the Labor Party. Coles Myer donated $110,000 to the Liberal Party. They made an offsetting donation to the Labor Party. Pratt Holdings donated $105,000 to the Liberal Party. Western Mining donated $103,000 to the Liberal Party. Grollo Australia donated $100,000 to the Liberal Party. None of them bothered to make offsetting donations to the Labor Party. It is pretty clear what the Liberal Party believes it will achieve through putting this bill through the House. The Liberal Party believes that it will be able to secure the financial benefit of that tax deductibility—certainly at the expense of Labor and also at the expense of the taxpayer.The member for Banks and other speakers were right to point to many of the attractive and desirable features of Australia's political and electoral system, but I think it is also fair to say that we have some problems in the way that our electoral system functions and, in particular, in the way that political donations function, particularly this prospect of secret foundations and trusts receiving donations, passing them on to the Liberal Party and not being accountable for them so that we do not know who the ultimate donors are. For example, earlier this year it was reported that the Liberal Party had received a $4,650,000 loan from a secret foundation. The lender—the Greenfields Foundation—has strong links to the Liberal Party's former secret funding vehicle—the Free Enterprise Foundation, which was caught through a 1995 crackdown on disclosure law. Up until that time, the Free Enterprise Foundation had donated large sums to the coalition but was not required to reveal the donations it received. So that circumvented the intent of the funding disclosure laws.When we endeavoured to close that loophole, we found that the Greenfields Foundation was loaning rather than donating money to the Liberal Party and thereby maintaining that it was not obliged to provide any information to the Australian Electoral Commission. But, revealingly, the address that they use is the same Canberra post office box used by the Free Enterprise Foundation, and any inquiries that the Electoral Commission has made to the Greenfields Foundation have been answered by Mr Tony Bandle, who has been a trustee of the Free Enterprise Foundation since 1981. Indeed, when the Liberal Party was challenged on this, its federal director said, `Under the Electoral Act, anyone can lend money to a political party. All we are required to provide is a name and address. You can write to them.' So it was pretty clear that the Liberal Party had no intention of bringing the public into the know on where this money had come from and the purposes to which it was being put.We see a circumstance where the main bankrollers of the Liberal Party are private trusts. We have things like the Cormack Foundation, Add Lib, the 500 Club, and I have already mentioned the Free Enterprise Foundation. We have seen high profile business people including John Elliott, Richard Pratt, Hugh Morgan from Santos, WMC, Coles Myer, Lion Nathan and Southcorp all pitching heavy donations in the direction of the coalition, but not Labor. We had the aviator Dick Smith donating more than $10,000 to the Liberal Party, including a special contribution for Prime Minister Howard's electorate of Bennelong. Dick Smith has done pretty well, let me say, from the change of government.All of this occurs against a backdrop where this government had said it was going to raise political standards, but in fact it has taken no action to do that whatsoever. My feeling is that out there in the community there is a sense that political standards have been damaged and are progressively being diminished. For example, prior to the election we had a parliamentary inquiry talking about a ban on inaccurate and misleading political advertising, and all the inquiry's coalition members regarded this as a good thing, including the Special Minister of State (Senator Minchin). But we now learn that the federal government has opposed or at least postponed plans to ban inaccurate or misleading political advertising so, in the colourful words of the Adelaide Advertiser, `politicians are likely to be free to tell blatant lies during the next federal election campaign'.You can tell that the idea of greater election spending, more donations based on tax deductibility, very little in the way of restrictions on what can be said in the course of the election campaign, and all this advertising, mean that the coalition is intending to swamp the electorate with a glitzy campaign. There will be very little in the way of truth, very little in the way of detail, certainly on the big issues like GST, and very little in the way of detail on any of the other things on which the electorate will need to make up its mind on the election outcome. I regret to say that there is no doubt that in any political system influence can be bought and donations do have some effect. There is no getting around that; influence can be bought. We have seen, I think regrettably, some suggestion of that already in the last couple of years.Interestingly, we had a quite spectacular outburst from Mr John Sweeney, the Chairman of the Trust Company of Australia, which had made a very substantial donation to the Liberal Party during the 1996 election. If I recall it correctly, they had donated some three floors of their offices for use as a campaign headquarters, so by any yardstick this was a very handsome donation in kind. Mr Sweeney, we understand, was approached by Ron Walker, the Liberal Party's federal treasurer about using their headquarters again. He said, `Let's do it again—the same as we did last time.' We understand that Mr Sweeney replied, `Over my dead body' or words to that effect and he went on to describe the Liberal Party's actions over the Managed Investments Bill 1997 as `treacherous as Pearl Harbour'. Mr Sweeney cited the statements of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the board of the Trust Company in front of Andrew Robb that they would not support the Managed Investments Bill. Of course, this government has proceeded with the Managed Investments Bill, so you do not need to be Einstein to work out what has happened here. John Sweeney and co were done in.I think one thing that we do need to say is, `Let the Liberal donor beware'—you might not get what you think you are getting. It is often suggested that an honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought. That apparently cannot be said of the Treasurer. Mr Sweeney has made it clear, on the record in a public fashion, that he is not prepared to support the Liberal Party because of the way they have behaved over the Managed Investments Bill.We have also seen concerns expressed about the fundraising of the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), who was unable to explain here or anywhere else just how it was that a donation from Ramsay Health was described as being care of his electorate office post box. We have had some queries about what has been occurring there.I think, quite seriously, we have been seeing examples of the banks, which are unquestionably supporters of this government, being given rather privileged treatment in the way this government has gone about its conduct of government. For example, we have recently seen reported that the big banks' fee income has risen some $657 million in the past 12 months, yet we have had absolutely nothing coming from this government by way of criticism of those fees and charges; nothing of the sort of criticism that the previous Treasurer used to do to contain banks' fee and charges.We have seen a situation where, during the half year to March, the big four banks earned nearly $3.5 billion in fee income. Last October and November all the banks restructured their fees and charges. The National Australia Bank doubled some of their over-the-counter fees to $2, Westpac reduced the number of fee free transactions, while the Commonwealth Bank introduced phone and Internet banking fees. Last September the federal government accepted the recommendations of the Wallis inquiry to allow banks to set their own fees and charges. As soon as that occurred the fees rose, but what did you get from this government? Absolutely nothing in the way of comment concerning that or any action to monitor those fees and charges.It is interesting that this government has been taking the credit for lower mortgage interest rates, but the Westpac Chief Executive, Bob Joss, has stated on record that the trade-off for lower mortgage rates is higher bank fees and charges. So you have got to ask the government: do you also accept responsibility for the big four banks earning that $3.5 billion in fee income during the half year to March—the $657 million increase over last year's figure? In relation to these issues, this government has been running absolutely dead.The same applies to the issue of choice of superannuation fund. The member for Banks earlier referred to the fact that the banks, in supporting this government in the way they have, in bankrolling this government in the way they have, have an expectation that they will be able to get their hands on the superannuation income of ordinary workers. The government's choice of superannuation fund legislation is designed to give banks and other vested interests that advantage. Otherwise, why would it be before the parliament? There is no support for this coming from employees. There is no call for this. No-one is coming into our electorate offices demanding to have what is described as `choice of superannuation fund'. There is no support for this from employers, for whom this is a royal pain in the neck and will simply result in more red tape, more paper work, for them. There is no call for this from other areas of the superannuation industry. There is certainly no call for this from the industry funds and the like—which have been doing a very good job, let me say, in looking after workers' superannuation.The government's changes are designed to give the banks and other vested interests a leg-up into that superannuation area. There is a suspicion in my mind and in the minds of others that this represents a pretty crude trade-off for campaign donations. This is not the kind of influence which we want in this nation and in this parliament. Regrettably, if this bill—the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 —is passed, we will see more of this sort of thing rather than less. We will see donations go up to $1,500 on the back of tax deductibility and a lot more in the way of corporate donations. That will be at the expense of the taxpayer and it will also be at the expense of good government, of decent, clean and honest government, in this country. We in the Labor opposition will be opposing this bill, and we will be urging others to do likewise in the Senate.22:01:004688Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—in reply—We have heard a fair bit of grandstanding in this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998 . I just want to go through this very simply for those people who are listening to this debate. Somebody who, for example, donates $100 would, if they are a company, get back $36. If they donate $1,500, they would get $540 back. If they donate $10,000, they would get $540 back.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—No, for $2,000 they get a third.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—No, they get $540. If they go to $20,000, they would get $540. If they go up to $100,000, what do they get? They get $540. The member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) came in here and indicated that a number of people and companies had donated substantial amounts of money to political parties. The implication of course was that these guys were going to get great tax deductions. But on $100,000 they would get a $540 tax deduction. That is a great incentive, isn't it? Somebody who has got $100,000 will really be swayed by the fact that he will get back $540 in tax deductibility. That is the first thing to say about the sort of grandstanding that we have had going on here by the Labor Party. It is so much nonsense. That is the simple reality of it. I do not believe that, if those people contribute $30,000, $50,000 or $100,000 to a political party, they are going to be moved by tax deductibility.Of course, there are unions who donate to the Labor Party. They do not have to pay tax. The unions do not pay tax. They take money off Liberal Party voters and then filter it through to the Labor Party—that is how they do it. They take the dues from Liberal voters, National Party voters, Independent voters and Democrat voters and then, of course, they just siphon it through into the unions and back to the Labor Party. That is how the Labor Party do it.The other thing about this piece of legislation which has been totally ignored by the Labor Party is the fact that it will give tax deductibility to Independents and anybody else who wants to put up their hand and participate in the democratic process without being involved in a big party. This legislation really does extend equity and fairness in this area. Of course, the Labor Party do not like that. They like to hunt in packs and just keep in groups. They are not individual or independently motivated people. They just hunt in packs. They hate people who are independent thinkers. They hate people who choose things, people of conscience or anyone like that. They are opposed to this.They do not want an individual to be able to put up their hand and say, `Look, if anybody donates to me I'm going to have a run in the seat of Banks, just to stand, to participate in the election which is coming up.' The Labor Party do not want these people to be able to get tax deductibility. That is one of the reasons they are opposing this—or the reason some of them are opposing it. I am not quite sure if they all oppose it or not. Some on the committee supported it. Was it Senator Conroy? The opposition shadow spokesman for veterans' affairs supported this to begin with, but obviously he must have been rolled in the party room or he has changed his view. But, then again, the Labor Party will do anything or say anything to get into government, so we can expect these sorts of things to happen.There has been a lot of grandstanding here. The Labor Party do not want Independents or small parties to be able to participate and get a fair go. They just want to keep other taxpayer funded sorts of things for large parties and not allow individual people to get the same sorts of benefits. The Labor Party totally ignored that, and yet it is a major part of this legislation.I just want to go over a few other points in this summing up speech. This bill implements the government's response to the tax related recommendations in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 election. The recommendations of the joint standing committee were unanimous. In other words, the committee included members of the Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party, and the recommendations were totally unanimous. In the committee the people sat back and looked at the matters. They all believed that this was the best way to go, and of course that is what we are doing: we are implementing this unanimous decision by the joint standing committee.Recommendation 61 provides that the tax law be amended so that the donations to a political party of up to $1,500 annually, whether from an individual or a corporation, are tax deductible. Currently the tax law allows contributions of $2 or more up to a maximum ceiling of $100 per annum to registered political parties under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to be tax deductible by individuals. The government agrees with the joint standing committee that an increase in the tax deductible threshold from $100 to $1,500 per annum will encourage small to medium donations. This will increase the number of Australians, including companies, involved in the democratic process and will reduce a political party's reliance on a small number of large donations.Recommendation 62 provides that the tax laws be amended to provide that donations to an Independent candidate at a federal or state election are tax deductible at the same level as donations to registered parties. Currently such donations are not tax deductible. The bill also implements this recommendation. This provides an equivalence of treatment between Independent candidates and members and political parties. The bill also implements the government's decision to allow taxpayers to make tax deductible contributions to political parties that are registered under state or territory electoral legislation. This expansion complements the tax concession afforded to Independent candidates and members.The members for Canberra (Mr McMullan) and Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) indicated that the Labor Party will oppose the bill. The effect of that is to retain the status quo. This means that Independent candidates and members do not receive equal treatment with registered political parties. That is clearly unfair and clearly inequitable. We did not hear anything about that from the Labor Party. They are not about equity. I have not heard any justification by the Labor Party in regard to this issue. More importantly, it demonstrates that the Labor members of the committee—Senator Conroy, the deputy chair of committee, and Laurie Ferguson, the shadow minister for veterans affairs—have been rolled totally and completely on this issue in the party. After full consideration in committee stages, listening and looking at the 1996 election, they decided in their judgment that this recommendation of $1,500 was a good, wise and sensible decision. Then they got to the party room and, as the Labor Party will do anything to get back into power, they were rolled, probably by the chiefs of the Labor Party such as their national secretary or somebody like that.The bill has been given priority as the proposed amendments are to take effect from 1 July 1998. Australians wishing to make tax deductible donations to political parties and Independents under the new proposed arrangements will remain uncertain until the proposed legislation has been passed by the parliament. The Labor Party's justification for their stance on the bill simply does not add up. This bill very simply changes the tax law to do two things: to increase the threshold for tax deductibility—as simple as that—and to give equivalence of treatment between Independent candidates and members and political parties. It does no more than that. They are two very simple changes to the tax law. The Labor Party would like to make a lot of these changes but they are essentially two very simple changes: to increase the threshold for tax deductibility from $100 to $1,500 and to give equivalent treatment to allow more Australians to participate in the democratic processes in this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills4690r5444690Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.22:12:004690Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Given the fact that this parliament seems to be coming to its end, I wish Mr Miles well, the former member for Braddon to be, in his future career. I begin the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 by indicating that the opposition will be supporting this legislation but wishes to raise a number of matters which go to how effective it may be in its application. The first point is that there is truth in the proposition that low income farmers do not benefit equally from the opportunity to take advantage of tax deductions under section 387A and 387B of the tax act for Landcare activities. What that means is that there may be some disincentive for them relative to their more affluent counterparts to invest in repairs of rural lands.Both the former Labor government and the current government have put in place measures designed to facilitate and assist activities to address the terrible backlog of environmental damage that has been caused through bad planning and poor farming practices, often through no fault other than a lack of knowledge as to appropriate methods but nonetheless very significant damage that has been caused in the past. The mechanisms that have been used include the tax system, the Natural Heritage Trust and direct expenditures through programs such as the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. This particular measure fits in by giving a rebate to low income farmers whose incomes are less than $20,700. So the effective benefit for their expenditure on Landcare activities is worth to them 34c in the dollar.The difficulty that we have with this proposition is not the principle of it but some of the estimates of how far it will be applicable and the degree to which it will be effective in reaching its intended beneficiaries. To begin with, I think it has to be said that farmers who do have taxable incomes below $20,700 are certainly not flush with cash. If you have an income below that, most of your expenditure is going to be committed to the struggle to survive and your capacity to find additional capital expenditure may be quite low. To the extent to which that is the fact, the capacity of farmers to draw down even on this rebate is to be severely doubted.The government will finance this measure by appropriating some $80 million which it would have otherwise expended directly on landcare projects under the Natural Heritage Trust. So this, in a sense, does not represent new dollars committed to this sector but, rather, a different vehicle for its application. But, if you think through the mathematics of that application, the only way that $80 million can be drawn down is if there is additional expenditure on farm related landcare in aggregate of about $240 million. The reason for that is you only get the 34c in the dollar and, if the value in the estimates is $80 million, in order to access that $80 million there must be a multiple investment which adds up to $240 million.It seems to me, at least on first sight, somewhat improbable that farmers whose incomes must be less than $20,700 are sufficiently numerous on the ground to be able to make investments collectively of that order. What this presages is the same kind of slow retreat from reality that we saw with the farm retirement package, where originally the government said it was putting forward a major initiative that would benefit some 10,000 Australian farmers to enable them to retire from subeconomic land. They revised that figure down some little while later to 4,000, or perhaps 5,000, and they now estimate that the uptake of that will actually be 1,500 farmers.Of course, no-one hears much about the retreat. They hear the announcement, they see the fistful of dollars waved and they antici pate that they will be able to access those benefits. But, when the bitter truth emerges as to how difficult it is to access the programs, how difficult the guidelines are, those findings are not communicated in the blaze of publicity that attended the first announcement. With the present measure there was a blaze of publicity. I think it was the only mention of the environment, oblique though it may be, included in the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Costello).I suspect that what will happen is that there will be nowhere near the uptake of the $80 million. So what is being offered to the low-income farming community of Australia, to those rightly regarded to be in greatest need, is an illusion. The illusion is that they too can access funds of a substantial order to assist them in repairing their damaged agricultural lands. But the truth is they will be able to do it only if they can find, from the banks or from their own personal resources, the capital to expend in order to draw down that rebate.As I indicated in my remarks previously, it seems highly improbable that that group of farmers whose taxable incomes are below $20,700 can collectively bring forward $240 million of additional capital expenditure. To put that in some context, last year the landcare component drew down some $120 million worth of funding under the Natural Heritage Trust. So, if this program actually draws on the full $80 million, it represents a doubling of farm commitment to landcare that would otherwise have occurred simply through the Natural Heritage Trust but funded by the lowest income earning farmers in Australia. I suspect the mathematics simply does not add up.The other point that I think should be put on the record is that the drawdown is against the Natural Heritage Trust. The Natural Heritage Trust has become the equivalent of the magic pudding to the coalition. Maybe some in the gallery would know the story of The Magic Pudding, one of Australia's most well loved children's tales by C. J. Dennis.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Norman Lindsay.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Sorry, Lindsay, of course. But the pudding was available to be cut and come again. It was the mythical magic political solution where you could carve off a slice and then have another one from whence you carved the first. The magic pudding's political equivalent has become the Natural Heritage Trust. What was once touted as the most significant commitment to the environment and landcare in this nation's history has become debauched. It has become debauched for three reasons. Firstly, it has become debauched because of the manner of its administration. I do not want to retail here what I have retailed at length previously about the way in which nine out of every $10 that have thus far been expended in the early rounds of the fund went to coalition held seats.I do not need to retail how the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) intervened personally to overturn the recommendations provided to him by the so-called independent advisory bodies that were set up in each of the states and territories. I do not need to address all the issues which go to the political rorting of the scheme. Those are clearly on the public record. But what I do want to say is that there are further reasons why one should regard the scheme as having been thoroughly debauched.The second reason to regard the scheme as thoroughly debauched is that one of the clear commitments of this government prior to the introduction of the trust was that it would be supplementary to the forward estimates of the Labor government. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) gave his absolute guarantee that not one dollar of those forward estimates would be removed. Of course, we know from the budget figures that that was simply a misleading and untruthful statement. What has occurred is that the forward estimates that apply to both expenditure through the Department of the Environment for recurrent environmental expenditure and expenditure in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy have been reduced. So the value of the Natural Heritage Trust has been substantially diminished and funding withdrawn to apply to the normal recurrent purposes of the department, quite contrary to the pledges made to the Australian people when the Prime Minister went to the Sherbrooke Forest and set out on this misleading and deceitful course of conduct.The third point that is important to realise is that not only have the recurrent expenditures of the government been reduced but the fund has been drawn on to meet expenditures which would have normally come as special appropriations. For example, in my own state of Tasmania, where does the funding for the reservation of private forest lands which were associated with the regional forest agreements come from? It certainly was not provided for in the budget. It comes out of the Natural Heritage Trust.When you go up to Cape York and look at the CYPLUS agreement negotiated by the former Labor government, it cannot go ahead because this present government will not commit itself to it as a result of the intransigence of Borbidge. But some of the environmental concerns are to be addressed where from? Not from general expenditure in the forward estimates as we had—no, another steal from the Natural Heritage Trust.Tonight we see yet a further steal from the Natural Heritage Trust. We find that the fund has been reduced by $80 million to fund this tax initiative. Where else do you find a tax initiative being funded from a trust? You find that where people are deceitful and misleading. You find it when they say one thing before their election and do another afterwards.This government lacks all credibility now. It politically rorted the Natural Heritage Trust fund, it misled the Australian public that it would not diminish the commitment into the forward estimates put forward by the former Labor government, it has stolen tranches of money to meet the proper commitments of government in the normal course of their business from the fund and now it is meeting its revenue shortfall on the tax side by another bite into the Natural Heritage Trust.What we see in this measure is a good, well-crafted idea being debauched by two things: firstly, an overestimate of the number of beneficiaries, a misleading impression being left with the farming community that they will be able to draw down on this to their economic benefit when plainly those low income farmers will be struggling to meet the capital costs of moving into these fields. This, therefore, is unlikely to be as accessible to them as they would anticipate. It is the same kind of misleading that occurred with the farm retirement scheme. That is the first area where the Australian public are being set up for disappointment. The second reason is that it is just part of another process of using the Natural Heritage Trust as the magic pudding, which seems to be sliced and sliced again as if it keeps going. It does not keep going. It just means that the trust's real value to the Australian community is diminished.What was put forward to the Australian community as the most important and principled commitment of an Australian government to land repair and to management of the environment has now stumbled into ignominy. When you have the Australian Conservation Foundation and groups right across Australia now speaking out about the appalling environmental record of this government, the Natural Heritage Trust no longer gives any cover. It has no credibility, and the failure of its credibility is sheeted home to this government that has so abused the confidence of the Australian public by deceitfully cheating on the three key underlying principles that they pledged before the last election with respect to that trust.This is a government that deserves no trust. This is a government that has forfeited the right to trust. This is a government whose Prime Minister lacks any trust from the Australian community. This is a government whose funding of this tax arrangement would normally come straight from general revenue. If any of the opposition members who are cheerfully smiling can point to any other example where an appropriation of this nature has come from a specific appropriation of money, they are welcome to tell me. But no, all those nice members interjecting opposite are hypocrites because they cannot. The environment suffers as a consequence.The opposition is happy to support this measure. It will help some low income farmers, but certainly not the numbers the government holds out the promise to, and at the cost of direct funding expenditure, the debauching of the Natural Heritage Trust, because of that squandering of the opportunity that was offered to the Australian community by the Prime Minister at the last election. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned.Adjournment469310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.469322:30:004693Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—We have heard so much in the last few weeks about what is happening to our health system, and I would like to read a letter into Hansard to reflect what is happening to the health system in Tasmania. It reads:Dear Mr Harry QuickI am writing in regards of this so-called Health System you parliamentary people all seem to have your finger in. Well I'm here to tell you it stinks. By my writing this letter it probably won't make an ounce of difference but at least you know how us average low income people are treated and expected to live, like second class citizens. The RSPCA don't treat animals like this. I am 22 years old, married and have three children. They are aged three and a half, two and a half and three months.I recently went to my GP about this terrible pain I had been experiencing. He told me after several tests I had Gall stones. So then being referred to a surgeon who is meant to be the best. He tells me I need my gallstones removed but because of my age they would take the gallbladder out too. But there is approximately a 3 year waiting list to have this surgery performed at the Royal Hobart Hospital. Basically, he told me that unless I could pay just under $2000 to have this done or had private health cover I would just have to sit and wait. These people with private health cover or $2000 would have priority over me.With stupid recommendations of stay away from fatty foods. So I stuck to a strict diet of fruit and veges—five small meals a day. Guaranteed they couldn't live like this.Anyway, Monday 25th May I started experiencing terrible pain and put up with it knowing of this waiting list and the surgeon's attitude. Tuesday it was worse, so I rang him. He told me to go to the clinic between 9.30 and 10.00 am. When I arrived, after the usual wait, I was told to eat as I should. There wasn't anything they could do, I wasn't the only one in pain nor was I the only one on this waiting list. Wednesday, 27th May: the pain is just so bad I am nearly doubled over and went to Accidents, Emergency at Royal Hobart Hospital. Not many questions asked but was I down for surgery? What had I eaten all day? My reply: one banana. They gave me a shot of pethidine and sent me home.Thursday 28th: suffered all day again in terrible pain till I couldn't take any more and back to Royal Hobart Hospital. Again after a four hour wait a shot of pethidine, no questions asked and back home.Friday 29th: arrived at Royal Hobart Hospital at approximately 10 am to sit in a waiting room for four hours in terrible pain after being called in and sat in a cubicle for a couple more hours. They prodded and poked, took me for ultrasound, took blood, offered me more pethidine which I rejected. After all this to be sent home being told even though I have suffered for a whole week I wouldn't be entitled to surgery, nor will I be moved up the list and if I come back they will admit me for drug relief.So here it is, Monday, 1st June, seven days later and I am at home in terrible pain, with recommendations of taking Panamax every four hours.Now tell me, animals don't suffer like this—why should I? And I'm damn sure you big nobs wouldn't have to suffer like this. With three children I am not capable of looking after what do I do?It's no good going to the Royal. Go in there with gall stones and come out a drug addict.I am no different than these people with good jobs, on private health cover Just because I am unemployed I have to suffer.Where's the justice!So much for this so-called Health System. I don't really know what your job is, but aren't you there for the people of Gagebrook, Bridgewater. I shouldn't have to suffer any more just because I'm not one of the more fortunate people with money.How can they deny me this operation for anything up to three years? And to top it all off the bloody nurses are on strike—fabulous health system.Whoever has done this to the system needs shooting, they shouldn't be able to play with people's lives like this. Ha! What a life mine is, spent in bed the majority of the time.Please, what can you do to help? I'm desperate. By the way, in three weeks, through not being able to eat, I've lost seven kilograms. What will I be like in three years?Yours sincerelyKaylene Sturzaker.And she is not the only one. You might laugh across the road, but these are real people. The health system in Tasmania is in crisis and something needs to be done instead of all the political grandstanding by all people in this House, on both sides of the House, because people like Kaylene are suffering.469422:35:004694McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—Today is the 201st anniversary of the landing of the first merinos on Australian soil and, like some other members, I have got a symbol of the wool industry here on my lapel to celebrate that event. As a former wool grower of Corriedale sheep, well known for their meat and lustrous 25- to 30-micron wool, I have been very much part of this industry. There has been some confusion about the original importer, John Macarthur. His wife did much of the work with the original merino. He had certain roguish tendencies. My forebears were free settlers from Scotland. I would like to get that clearly on the record here in the parliament.But 3 June 1998 is a much more important occasion because we have in the gallery students from the schools of Lethbridge, Inverleigh, Meredith, Shelford, Anakie and Batesford, from the heartland of Corangamite, the premier wool growing area of Australia. The students are here to see the parliament in action, and they have seen some quite lively performances, both this evening and yesterday. They have visited the High Court. They have visited the House of Representatives. They have seen it in its usual active state with nobody there. They have seen the Japanese embassy and they have seen the Science and Technology Museum.Members will be interested to know that the students had a mock parliament at Meredith where real democracy was in action, major issues were discussed and there was grassroots debating. The member for Corangamite was appointed Speaker without debate, and the legislation before the House was `No junk food to be consumed at the school'. The government had a view: they were against junk food being consumed. The Prime Minister was appointed—Rebecca Smith, after a party room count. Sam Toulmin was appointed opposition leader. Strong speeches were made and there were a lot of interjections. No suspensions were undertaken by the Speaker and the Speaker was totally in control. I wish to draw to the House's attention that these young students started to behave like members of the House of Representatives.The doors were locked, a vote was taken and the majority was on the government side. Opinions were expressed on both sides about the value of the debate, and there was some concern that some members on the opposition side were supporting the government. That does not happen in this place. There was a heated debate about the local issues, and they understood that it is a privilege here in Australia to debate matters freely—unlike in Indonesia where troops, guns, nepotism and corruption have been the order of the day.Lethbridge is a very fine little village—over 100 years old—in the Golden Plains Shire halfway between Bannockburn and Meredith. Inverleigh has a background in sheep and crops and is based on the Barwon River on the Hamilton Highway. McConachy's Family Store is also the local post office.Shelford is the centre of a top merino wool-growing area. Anakie is near the You Yangs in the seat of Corio and the member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) is the member representing that group. Batesford is on the Moorabool River, and Meredith is the centre of a fine wool-growing area. It has a great number of rabbit populations and increasing blue gum plantations, which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr), who is at the table, would not understand. He has no understanding of matters like blue gum populations. Meredith was the home of Sir Henry Bolte, who was the Liberal Premier of Victoria from 1975 until 1972.I thank the teachers who have helped bring the students here to Canberra: Rob Lamond from Lethbridge, Debra Stavenuiter from Inverleigh, Erica Baulch from Meredith, Michael Kinnane from Meredith and John Tantau from Lethbridge. They have given a lot of time, devotion and enthusiasm to this event. The students have been in the whip's office and they now have a clear understanding of democracy at work here in the House of Representatives. There may be a future Prime Minister from the heartland of Corangamite. They can see the freedom with which big issues are debated here, although the honourable member for Denison does not fully understand the issues of land care and the allocation of funds. As I said, the students understand the freedom that we have to debate—not at the point of a gun like in the Middle East, Cambodia or Indonesia. (Time expired)469522:40:004695Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—On indulgence, on behalf of the opposition, I extend the same welcome to your constituents and I wish them and you well.469522:41:004695Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I wish to raise a matter which I believe is most serious within the portfolio of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith). It concerns what I understand to be the letting by Comcare of a contract without competitive tender, at a price of $600,000, to a Chicago based American company called AON Corporation. I am advised that the contract has been let to gather information from every government entity with respect to their insurance requirements. From the nature of the information being sought, it would seem that an attempt is being made to change the direction of Comcare from a purely workers compensation based corporation into a form of captive insurance company dealing with every class of insurance.Obviously AON, being a commercial broker, will have a significant advantage over other competitive brokers, even if they do allow competition, having been instrumental in gathering the information together and having met with every government entity. The effect of this, if it occurs, will be to remove many millions of dollars from the Australian insurance industry, giving it to Comcare and then presumably into the hands of international reinsurance companies, unless the government is going to put significant additional capital into Comcare. The consultancy and the advice would be wholly at the behest of 100 per cent offshore-owned entities.The potential for further losses of Australian jobs in the insurance industry is very real and many of those have disappeared in the last few years. As I indicated at the outset, my principal concern at this stage is that a contract of this scale could have been let by an organisation within the administration of the minister, without a competitive tender. I am also concerned that, without adequate investigation from independent expertise, the possibility of forming an all classes captive insurance company is being considered. It seems to me that, if this information is correct, it is an extraordinary breach of the minister's responsibilities in respect of his areas of administration, and I call on him, using this forum, to give a full explanation to the House.469522:44:004695Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise tonight to speak on an issue for which I have grave concerns and which I feel very strongly about: the ever-pervading violence portrayed in the media, film, video games and the music industry within our society and which our children and young people are subjected to. Tonight I would like to refer to an article in yesterday's Australian by Ruth Ostrow, entitled `Proof of pleasure positive is in the viewing'. In this article Ms Ostrow outlines the concern she has for her daughter who, at the age of four, is already shooting down her dollies with a make-believe gun—her plastic Mr Banana shampoo bottle—while in the bathtub.I certainly do share with her those concerns. Ruth Ostrow makes comments about consenting adults, which she is entitled to, of course, but I would like to point out that we, as parents, must be ever vigilant as to what our children are exposed to and what we think is appropriate to be produced for entertainment. I would be most concerned if my four-year-old son were shooting at make-believe objects or if he were to be accidentally exposed to one of the sex shows on the radio or television, either in the car while strapped into his safety seat with the radio tuned to the wrong station or at home watching TV unsupervised.I would be absolutely mortified and paralysed at the bathroom door if a four-year-old son of mine, while playing in the bathtub, decided to demonstrate sexual techniques to his dolly with his Mr Banana shampoo bottle or if I overheard him discussing with his kindy mates the advantages of multiple orgasms for women bound in leather. All of these, as some suggest, are truths about sexuality—and sex, as does violence, sells. For instance, a few years ago the publishers of the basketball magazine Jamming published pornography in the magazine that six- and seven-year-olds purchase.I hope that my sons are not exposed in such a manner and that they respect women and grow up not to laugh at or degrade them but to have a wonderful, meaning and loving relationship with the women that they love. So, consenting adults, please by all means do what you like in the privacy of your own home—not in public nor in front of the children—whether it be sex or violence.Having said that, I am not surprised that, at the tender age of four, Ruth Ostrow's daughter is already trying to shoot and kill—in make-believe, of course. A cartoon I watched many years ago with my children while in the lounge room was a sadistic, violent portrayal of the Three Bears. Daddy Bear was continually verbally abusing Baby Bear, calling him stupid, dumb, useless, hopeless and no good while at the same time beating him around the head and body with a four-by-four, laughing all the time. It made me feel sick to the stomach to watch, so I turned it off so my children did not have to see it.When I rang the manager of the television station to complain, all he did, in an amused manner, was to tell me to switch it off if I did not like it. I remarked, `That is fine for me, but what about children who aren't lucky enough to have their parent or caregiver sitting down watching with them?' His response was, `It's only a cartoon.'My grave concern about the level of violence in the media and violence generally is the effect that it can have on our young people. Young people are our future. They hold the key to the future of Australia and the world. Many are generally very optimistic, vibrant and live life to the fullest. In an earlier speech on youth suicide, I stated that for some, however, the world seems to offer little hope or enjoyment and that many look for an escape, which is often death. Youth suicide is a tremendous problem in Australia.The growing prevalence of violence in the media and on film suggests that violence is the way to solve problems and recent research suggests that a continuing stream of violence desensitises us as a society. I have previously remarked on comments by my eldest son, who at the time was 14 years old. He asked me whether you could die if you had coke poured in your ears. When I asked why he would want to know whether that was a way to die, his answer was that he had been listening to some music on the radio and the lyrics of a song were listing lots of different ways to commit suicide. Of concern to me is that not only do we have a diet of enforced violence portrayed constantly on our televisions and video games for even very young children through to adolescents but also our adolescents are constantly bombarded with violent and sadistic role models within the music industry.Our society has a problem when games such as Mortal Combat, where the object of the game is to kill, destroy and maim in the most gruesome manner possible, are produced for entertainment. Or there is the game, Harvest, whereby you get the highest number of points for killing little innocent babies. In addition, we have the Necromunda Gangers game, whereby the object of the game is to kill and maim and to collect as many weapons—such as knives, grenades, pistols and guns—as one can for extra points. So what are we, as a community and a society, teaching our children? (Time expired)469622:49:004696Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—Today in the House I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) when he was going to intervene to save the Australian pork industry. This industry is mostly made up of family farms and is perhaps one of the best examples of Australian farming as a small business. Unfortunately the years of hard work, personal and financial commitment and dogged determination have suffered at the hands of uncaring government policy. This industry is currently being devastated by subsidised pig meat from Canada and, although it is clear the Howard govern ment has the power to save this industry and the many Australian families reliant on its survival, it appears the government will not intervene.A study by the University of Queensland makes it clear foreign imports are destroying the Australian pork industry. It is equally clear the Howard government has the right, under article 19 of the World Trade Organisation Agreement, to suspend imports because of the demonstrable damage being done to this industry. When I asked the Prime Minister about this issue, his answer was one that would have given cold comfort to the dreadfully insecure families of pork farmers across Australia. The sacrifice of the pork industry on the altar of free trade is just one example. This international agenda must stop, and stop now. I call on the Howard government to reverse the rural decline and unemployment it is helping to sponsor.Tonight on A Current Affair, I would have thought Ray Martin would have been professional enough to divorce himself from the bias you would expect from his close links with the Aboriginal industry and those who discredit decent Aboriginal Australians with their obvious and grubby grab for money. I was wrong. As I have said, the real objective is not reconciliation but remuneration.On the subject of the dreadfully dangerous draft declaration of the rights of indigenous people and my parallel of the plans for Australia and the Canadian experience with Nunavut, I was somewhat taken aback that the indigenous nature of Nunavut could possibly be questioned. If Ray Martin has some communication from the Canadian government denying the true nature of Nunavut, then I suggest the people of this indigenous state are at odds with the Canadian government.Any doubt of this position can be clarified by simply turning to the Internet and typing in the address for Nunavut. My staff will happily make this address available to anyone interested in the truth—or at least the truth according to the people of Nunavut. Here is an example of what you will find:In 1999, the Inuit of the Nunavut area of Canada's Arctic will take on the responsibility of managing their own affairs, and those of the non-Inuit also living there.It certainly sounds like the Inuit Eskimos are clear on where they stand. Does Ray Martin seriously believe the Canadian government just carved out 350,000 square kilometres of freehold land for just 24,000 people just for the fun of it?As for Mr Jull, his involvement in these matters is also hard to deny, considering even just these snippets of available information: he was the research director of the Nunavut constitutional forum which negotiated the establishment of Nunavut; his work in the Office of Indigenous Affairs in Queensland; his association with the North Australian Research Unit; and the obvious use of his work by the Cape York Land Council. At the very least, Mr Jull's work has been the blueprint for the Aboriginal industry's plans for an indigenous state in Australia. There is much more, but this at least is enough to question the value of negotiating the draft declaration of the rights of indigenous people and its ramifications for other Australians.469722:52:004697Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—Some members may recall that in May last year I paid tribute to two friends of mine, Lui and Theresa Suine of Griffith, who were at that time celebrating 65 years of devoted marriage. Earlier in that year Lui had celebrated 70 years of life in Australia, having come to this country in 1927. As I said in the House at that time, Lui and Theresa were typical of those Italian migrants who have come to Australia over the years and helped make it the great nation it is today.Lui and Theresa Suine's contribution was made in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and one of Lui's proud statements was that there were only three months of his life in Australia in which he could not find work and these included the years of the Great Depression.Lui and Theresa were born in Cavaso in the beautiful Veneto region of northern Italy, not far from the city of Venice. They were married in Griffith in 1932 and the happy result for Australia was five children, 18 grandchildren and more than 20 great-grandchildren. I admired and respected the Suines and was deeply saddened when Theresa passed away nearly nine months ago.The last nine months, to say the least, have been difficult for Lui. With the support of his lovely family he has tried to get on with his life and care for himself and his small dog, a terrier named Jemma. It is with sadness that I now inform the House that in the early hours of last Friday Lui passed away in his sleep and has now rejoined his beloved Theresa.It was fitting that this great Australian of Italian heritage was buried yesterday, on the Italian national day. I offer my condolences to the extended Suine family and with them thank God for the lives of Lui and Theresa who contributed so much to the Riverina region in which I live and to this nation.469822:54:004698West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—I rise tonight to speak on a subject portrayed daily by the media. All ages and stages of our human race can be victims of its effect. It has crept into everyday life and in some ways is an integral feature of our everyday existence. If we are not affected by it ourselves, we know of others who have been affected by it personally and physically. We read about it, we see it on television, we hear about it, we talk about it and many actually carry it out.The subject to which I refer, of course, is violence. We recognise violence as socially unacceptable behaviour. Perpetrators end up in courts, gaol or die as a result of violent acts. Victims of violence lead a changed life, suffer consequentially for their part in the act and life is never, ever the same.I talk here generally about physical violence. It has become a feature of our daily entertainment and it is this aspect of the entertainment industry that I believe is doing our society a great injustice. Obviously, we do not have everybody out there in the streets committing violent acts. The majority of people in our community are not violent and show restraint and self-control when it comes to choosing the appropriate action and reaction to situations.What I am concerned about is the unrestricted diet of violence our children have foisted on them from the day their parents realise television can become the primary childminding tool. The seemingly harmless images of cartoons reinforce in a child's mind the painless depiction of violence: it is only pretend; it does not really hurt. It is worse where children view the videos hired by their parents rated R, Restricted, and M, Mature Audiences Only, which they are technically not supposed to view but in the confines of their family home do view, with parents not realising the consequences.This is not a call for blanket censorship of those videos but a plea to parents to realise that they are responsible for their children and ultimately for ensuring their children's minds are not affected by intrusive acts of violence that are totally unnecessary and may lead to disturbing psychoses. We have seen the effects of such a continued diet of violent entertainment in recent weeks—with real life examples of young killers who perpetrate violent acts with tragic circumstances. When you read the details, the effect is quite sickening—that a young person's life can be treated with such insensitivity and dispassion by others who are usually the same age or not much older. Police have revealed that they often find violent videos in the homes of criminals. It raises a question or two. Who's next? And why did they do this?Parents need to monitor what their children watch as entertainment. Parents also really need to reflect on their own personal choice of violence as a form of entertainment. Actors in films that depict such violent behaviours—and I mean the really graphic scenes—should also consider their part in this whole cultural acceptance of violence as a form of entertainment.There are a couple of films out now that portray violence against women. While there is not the usual blood and guts or gratuitous violence, they almost re-enact criminal acts committed in real life. We all know the famous saying `We are what we eat'. Let us take that a step further by considering that we may become what we watch, and act accordingly. If we are fed a diet of television and violence, there is no telling what we are to become.469922:58:004699Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Tonight I want to say a few words about a project in my own state of Tasmania which, unfortunately, has not been graced with any favours from this government. The project is a proposal for the construction of an AFL stadium. It has been advanced by a consortium which includes the business community and a union superannuation fund through the C+BUS scheme, so it would have substantial community support and the support of the Tasmanian government. It has been put forward for funding under the Centenary of Federation arrangements. Regrettably, although more than half the $1 billion that has been promised from the Centenary of Federation Fund had been thus far committed, not one dollar other than the amounts that have been allocated per electorate—that is, the $200,000 per federal member—has yet been allocated to Tasmania. That contrasts with other states where every other state has received a very significant benefit.The cruelest blow was dealt on the weekend when the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) went to the marginal Liberal seat of Robertson and announced that the federal government would be making a $12 million contribution to a multi-purpose stadium—virtually the mirror image of the AFL stadium proposal in Tasmania. It is a cruel blow because New South Wales is actually in the middle of a building boom. It is going to be hosting the Olympics. There are enormous construction projects under way. My own state is the most economically disadvantaged at the present time. There is no building boom under way. In fact, construction workers are languishing for want of work. The failure of the present Prime Minister even to receive a delegation from those putting forward the proposal when he can travel to Robertson and hand out $12 million is a matter of grave regret.Question resolved in the affirmative.23:00:004699House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Documents4699The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 June 1998:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Rules 1998 Torres Strait Regional Authority Election (Casual Vacancies).Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument 1998 No. CASA 175.Migration Act—Statement under section 91D.1998-06-03Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.45 a.m.Bills4700r5314700Consideration resumed from 2 June.Department of Primary Industries and EnergytogetherDepartment of the EnvironmentDepartment of the Prime Minister and CabinettogetherDepartment of the TreasuryDepartment of Finance and AdministrationAdvance to the Minister for Finance and AdministrationProvision for Running Costs BorrowingsDepartment of DefencetogetherDepartment of Veterans' AffairsDepartment of Employment, Education, Training and Youth AffairsDepartment of Foreign Affairs and TradeDepartment of Social SecuritytogetherDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural AffairsDepartment of Transport and Regional DevelopmentDepartment of Workplace Relations and Small BusinessDepartment of Primary Industries and EnergyProposed expenditure, $500,972,000Department of the EnvironmentProposed expenditure, $372,506,00009:45:004700Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—In today's media there is a story about the final signing of an agreement on the Jabiluka mine—the last step to allow the go-ahead. Last night I briefly mentioned my concern about this mine. The uranium mine at Jabiluka is not just an issue for this parliament; it is an issue about one of only 20 areas in the world that has world heritage listing for both its environmental and cultural significance. It would appear that the government does not really care about world heritage significance. This government prides itself on making decisions based purely on economics. Whether you look at land clearing, the Hinchinbrook development or the approval for the Jabiluka uranium mine on the edge of Kakadu National Park, they are all developments that make no efforts to conserve the biological diversity or respect the people who live there. We have to get serious about the way we value our environment and our community.In the case of Jabiluka, both environmental groups and the traditional landowners are opposed to the mine. Ms Yvonne Margarula, the senior traditional owner of the Mirrar people, explained her people's opposition to the mine and opposition to the $210 million in royalties. She said:Money come and go. Aboriginal people walk around a lot, but we always go back to (the) country where we (were) born. No matter where we go, we always go back to the same place.In the recent budget, the government cut funding for the management of world heritage properties, which includes the Kakadu National Park. Not surprisingly, most of the moneys were cut from budget funding—exactly 50 per cent. Natural Heritage Trust funding, which goes to specific projects in world heritage areas, has also been cut by eight per cent. If you add the budget and Natural Heritage Trust funding together, the government has cut 67 per cent or $14.5 million from world heritage funding. One has to ask: is this an indication of what the government's priorities are when it comes to the environment?The government has plans to overturn the existing management of the Kakadu National Park. During the Fraser and Labor governments, the land was handed back to the traditional landowners. The traditional landowners gladly shared their land and culture with other Australians and with many overseas visitors. If this handover, the winding back of these arrangements, were to go ahead, this would be nothing short of yet another vicious assault on relations with traditional owners.Other concerns about uranium mining go to the health of the workers. I would contend that as yet we have not had proper monitoring of health outcomes for past workers. There is not only the health of workers but also the health of the ecosystem. This mine that I am talking about would leave 20 million tonnes of radioactive tailings. These have a life of at least 250,000 years. That is not bad for a mine with a lifespan of only 28 years.ERA is also considering an alternative option to mill the uranium on site at Jabiluka instead of at the existing Ranger mine nearby. They will be preparing a public environment report themselves for the consideration of the minister. Dr Peter Bridgewater, the Commonwealth Supervising Scientist, said:If ERA were to proceed with the Jabiluka mill alternative, I would recommend in the strongest possible terms to the minister for the environment that ERA be required to prepare a new EIS.Why has the minister ignored the advice of the Commonwealth's Supervising Scientist and allowed ERA to conduct their own report—a report which, I might add, is less rigorous than the EIS process?This mine will have a devastating environmental impact on the Kakadu National Park. Most Australians do not want it and the traditional owners do not want it. I would ask that the government consider these matters in trying to balance environmental values that surround this project and the economic value.As I said, the direct funding off-budget for the management of the world heritage properties—and this is the line item that we are talking about that reduces from $10 million to $5 million—includes the management of the Tasmanian wilderness, Queensland Wet Tropics, Willandra Lakes, Australian fossil mammal sites and central eastern rainforest reserves. If we look at the last four, we will see that the funding to be contained in this year's budget reduces to zero. I hope there is some explanation about how these sums come about and that it is not an indication of the commitment of this government to those sites. (Time expired)09:50:004702O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I would like to make some brief observations about the allocations in the budget for the primary industry sector. Some of these are specific points; some of them are more general points. Let me go first of all to the specific points.There will be a lot of discussion between now and the next election about the government's AAA package. I will be continuing to make the point that we are supportive of all of the components of the AAA package, with the exception of the intergenerational transfer of the farm, which I will come to in a moment. They were previous Labor programs which were good policy and were funded at the levels that they have been funded at in these budget provisions.If I remember correctly, on the day of the announcement of AAA, everybody, with great fanfare, announced their support for these programs and said what a fabulous figure $517 million was. By Monday, 24 hours later, even the National Farmers Federation was saying that there actually was hardly any extra money and there was nothing new. That is the fact: for all the cant that was preached about previous Labor government programs in this sector, the fact is that what the government produced with this integrated rural package was a rebadging of everything that was previously there and the funding levels were almost identical. Given that history, we are obviously quite comfortable with those programs and are committed to continuing them. I take this opportunity to correct a mistake I made in the main chamber last night in the discussion on the intergenerational transfer bill. I quoted a figure which had come to me from the Senate that there were only 14 families who would be eligible to transfer, because the conditions were so stringent. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the original estimate put out by the government on launch day was 10,000. That has been revised down quietly in comments in various Senate estimates committees between last September and now. As of last night, we were being told the figure is 2,100 and that it is likely that 500 families will be eligible under the criteria. That is the figure that was arrived at in the debate last night from the government side. My point is not as colourful as it was when I thought the figure was 14, but it is still immensely valid, as that figure of 10,000 has been revised down now to effectively 500. I refer to the comment by the New South Wales Farmers Federation in January when they said they had yet to find anyone who qualified. The legislation will be through the Senate shortly. The real test will be to find out how many there are. If those figures are correct, then it has been exactly as I described it—a sad hoax, because the expectations were created on launch day of 10,000 and it is down to a much smaller number than that. But I do correct the error I made in the other chamber. The figure of 14 relates to re-establishment grants that have been qualified for under the flow-on from farm family restart and re-establishment. I wish to make a broader point. I am not quite sure how the minister is intending to deal with this, because he has not won many budget battles around the table with the Treasurer (Mr Costello). I am of the view—it is just a judgment—that the government has seriously underestimated the impact of the downturn in Asia. I am also of the view that the government may have underestimated the longer term flow-on of the climatic conditions we have been experiencing. If both those factors are correct—(Time expired)09:56:004702Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I will confine my remarks to as brief a program as I possibly can, although quite frankly I would like to take on some of these issues at great length. In relation to the comments this morning by the member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins), I remind him that the ALP platform was fully supportive of uranium mining until well into the 1970s. I think it might even have been the late 1970s or early 1980s when the loony left got hold of their program and put in place what can only be described as a totally absurd, intellectually dishonest and utterly indefensible so-called three mines—which was actually two mines—uranium mining policy approach. This has achieved nothing in terms of the national or international moral or even economic implications of uranium mining except to deny Australia some very urgently needed further contributions to our export performance. They were masters at ensuring that Australia had a very serious current account deficit. Their policy seemed to discriminate at every turn against exports over the 13 years that they were in government, yet they continued to hang on to such absurdities as what was in fact the two-mine uranium policy.In relation to Jabiluka, I think it is worth noting that the Northern Territory minister for resource development, Eric Poole, yesterday issued a release which sums it up pretty well in terms of what has happened up there after 18 years since the grant of the lease—18 years. The time it takes to do things in this country makes us a laughing stock in some parts of the world. The release states:Since the grant of the lease, this brings to fruition the Territory government's efforts to have another uranium mine on stream in the Territory, Mr Poole said. Although the path has been long—that is the understatement of the year—every environmental matter has been carefully considered. The resultant project will provide enormous economic benefits to the nation as well as an economic boost and considerable employment to the local Aboriginal people without any unacceptable impact on the environment.The release goes on, and if anyone is interested, they can look at it. I find it hard to question the thrust of what is being said.In more general terms, the member questioned this government's commitment to the environment. It was really very noticeable, I think, that more could be said about the things that he omitted to refer to than those to which he chose to refer. He made utterly no reference to the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust which sees levels of expenditure in this country on environmental programs in vitally needed practical programs such as bushcare, which is worth well over $300 million, and represents a real effort—not the sort of billion trees program under which probably more trees have died than have actually been planted and survived to maturity under the Hawke program—to provide the resources, the incentive and the policy framework to ensure that we do retain valuable vegetation in this country and plant vast areas of new vegetation.It sees virtually a doubling in funding for landcare. In fact, the landcare movement was stalling at the time that we came to government. The very group that won the Prime Minister's award for landcare in Western Australia in 1995 had gone into hibernation because they did not believe they could go anywhere at the time that we came to power. But we have seen an explosion in the number of landcare groups right across Australia because we are funding it in a far more realistic and, in dollar terms, large way. We also see such other valuable programs as the national land and water resources audit, which will for the first time in this country—and perhaps for the first time globally—give us absolutely impeccable information about the true state of our environment and the true state of our sustainable agricultural land use and other policies in a way that has simply not been worked through before. We see $70-odd million for river care as well as real funding for the coastal and clean seas program. And so it goes on. The record is quite outstanding. It is undergirded by a philosophy that the Labor Party were never able to catch up with. They were locked into 1970s approaches to environmental management where it was assumed that industry and environmental values and those who pursued them were automatically at loggerheads. There was a `knock them down, drag them out' sort of approach which we saw reflected here this morning. They have been unable to move to where the modern world is on environmental management, which is essentially recognising that industry and the environment groups have to pursue these things together. (Time expired)10:01:004704O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—To pick up where I left off, I was making the point that the government has underestimated the impact of the Asian downturn and I think the government may have underestimated the flow-on effects on farm incomes of El Nino and the general climatic situation, particularly down the east coast of Australia and elsewhere. If I am right about that—and let us hope I am not—then the $517 million that is made available in AAA for farm assistance and for income support will be substantially underestimated.That will mean the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) will have to go back to the budget table and seek a greater allocation. Given that we are going into an election campaign with our charter of budget honesty and with all of the surplus being used up with the tax cuts, we are going to have to face this issue of where the money comes from when the farm sector needs additional income support, if the government has underestimated these effects. I have no doubt that that will turn out to be the case. There has not been much success around that budget table against the Treasurer (Mr Costello). It is a question that I think the minister ought to be giving some thought to now. He ought to be preparing himself for the answers to those questions. That takes us to another area that is a substantial component of the primary industry budget allocation—the matching R&D grants. If there is a downturn in sales of the kind that may occur, it means there is not going to be the need to provide the same degree of matching grants because the levy revenue will be lower. I wonder whether the minister is able to put a commitment on the table now that, if those funds are not fully expended, they will not be siphoned off to somewhere else in the budget—perhaps offered up as part of the tax cuts or whatever. These are questions to be considered. Can you keep them in the primary industry budget? Let us see where we will go.We will have the tax debate as we go on. It will lead to discussion about the impact of the GST on the farm sector. I often hear the minister making the point in the parliament that anyone who opposes a GST must by definition be opposing farmers because it is impacting on their export income.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Like MUA.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—An interesting observation. The only way I can work this out in the farm sector is by examining the benefits that will be proposed in the tax package. There will be tax cuts—well, 70 per cent of farmers do not pay tax so they do not get any tax cuts. With regard to the reduction or removal of wholesale sales tax, farmers already have the wholesale sales tax exemption, so they do not get that. The petrol tax cuts have disappeared in the debate but, even if there were to be fuel tax cuts, the diesel fuel rebate already exists for farmers, so there is no gain there.What are we left with? What does happen to farmers? Of course, they get to pay the GST every time they wander into town to buy things. So, probably along with the very low income sector in the economy, this group of people will be paying more tax under a GST proposal. I do not know whether there will be some attempt to offset that in some of the provisions to be made in future budget programs. I just hope that those on the other side are not seriously deluding themselves that a tax reform package will somehow lead to an increase in income for farmers, because they will actually have substantially less disposable income and therefore will find themselves under more pressure for support under AAA and other support measures. These are things that we are going to be talking about during the next two, three, four or five months. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before we proceed with the debate, I remind all members that this is not a second reading debate; it is the consideration in detail stage. Therefore, while in the second reading debate on the appropriations a very wide latitude is given regarding the matters discussed, the consideration in detail stage should deal with the content of the bill.10:07:004705Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I want to say in absolute seriousness that, in the interests of a decent debate about rural Australia, I really do hope that the member opposite, the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), for whom I have a personal regard, will avail himself of my continual offers to secure some decent briefings from my department so he actually knows some of the raw truth about agriculture in Australia.He continually trots out this line that I have not won against the Treasurer (Mr Costello). Firstly, we work together. Secondly, if you have a look at the outlays, you will find that we have secured vast quantities of resources for rural Australia that your team did not. It is as simple as that. You ought to have a look at the raw reality because you confirm, apparently, that you just do not know what you are talking about when you issue those figures. I have to say that to you.The fact of the matter is that, as a member of ERC, I was able to contribute to the most important thing of all for farmers of this country, which was getting the books back into order so we got interest rates down, saving farmers hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and we got a stable currency which ABARE estimates has also delivered more than just the interest rate cuts. In 13 years, you were not able to do that; we did it over the course of about 18 months. We had a total reform which has delivered enormous benefits for rural Australia.Let me come very briefly to AAA. I am sorry I have got to rush through this. It is utter nonsense to say, firstly, that it is broadly the same as Labor's program and that it does not involve new money. It is a $517 million program taking the place of a $200 million program. It contains elements that simply did not exist before, that were not heard of before—like farm family restart. There are hundreds of farm families having their urgent needs met under that program. It did not exist before. It was not there. You cannot say this is a dollying up of Labor Party programs. It did not exist, mate. It was not there. Now there is Farmbis. That was not there. You did not have Farmbis. You talk about IEDs. They have been not only restored to the quality they had before Senator Walsh gutted them, but made available through the private sector instead of through the government as well.Then you come to programs which you seek to criticise, such as the retiring farmers benefit package. You never did anything like that at all. We have not taken anything away from farmers, let me add. They can still access the pension. But if they are in very necessitous circumstances, they may be eligible for a more generous arrangement. Over and above that, because unfortunately the member opposite has not understood this, exceptional circumstances are still available. It is needs driven, my friend. You obviously did not understand that; your speech made it obvious that you did not. If a need arises, the money will be there. Again you say I haven't won anything.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The minister should address his remarks through the chair.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—The fact of the matter is that we have doubled the recovery time following an exceptional circumstance over what Labor offered, and we have put something like $300 million over and above what was on the forward estimates into that program to meet real needs in states like Queensland that have been hard hit by drought.We retained such things as the diesel fuel rebate scheme, which was to go under Labor. They pulled it back just at the last moment prior to their last budget—literally almost the night before—because the then Prime Minister was worried about a backlash. Not only have we retained that in full, and retained R&D in full and so forth, but we have found that extra money. We have found money to double landcare and so forth and we have found such resources as the $130 million, I think, extra in total to rebuild AQIS, which was left technically insolvent by the previous regime when they were in power.In addition to that, let me make some other more general remarks just to again come to grips with the superficiality of some of these attacks. He says we have not prepared for the Asian downturn. Every responsible and understanding economist I am aware of in this country today says that the country would have been exposed to far greater damage if we had been running the sort of economic parameters that your team left us with. It is a reality that we have, relatively speaking, managed to insulate the Australian economy. It is impossible to do it completely because commodity prices are down and we are in the Asian region. But if anyone seriously disputes that we—and our farmers—are much better off under the sort of economic parameters that are now in place in this country, they ought to go to cloud-cuckoo-land because that is the only place they will find anyone who agrees with them.In terms of that provision for rural Australia, I come back to what I said a moment ago: the provisions are demand driven. When exceptional circumstances are tripped, the money will be found. It is not a question of having to win. Those things have been sorted out in a responsible way by a responsible government and farmers know full well how we have met those needs.10:12:004706O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—We have struck a nerve here. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) is very sensitive about some of these points. If we want to have a debate about whether the AAA package is just a rebadging of former Labor programs, or whether there is actually any real money, do not take my word for it. Take the NFF's word, as I said before. Within 24 hours of the launch, there they were saying, `We can only see at most $30 million of new money in a package of $517 million.' My figure on the day was $17 million. So two of us found that within 24 hours.Of course it has simply been a re-presentation of former programs. When we go to have a look at some of the components of it and we look at the take-up rate, we are going to find out that my figure was much more accurate even than the NFF's because the take-up rate is not there, because the criteria were much harsher than you led people to believe. You are supposed to understand the farm sector. You guys wander around the National Party telling everybody that you are the farm sector. You are supposed to understand these things, but you get them wrong. I just make that point. It is not just me. It is even the National Farmers Federation confirming what I am saying.I chuckle at your observation about the diesel fuel rebate. Heaven's above, do we all remember the intense campaign run by the farming industry, the mining industry and the road transport industry about diesel fuel policy and, in the case of farming and mining, about retaining their rebate? We sat, newly in opposition, having been through the same campaign from them year after year, budget by budget, wondering how you could have got yourselves into this mess with your prime constituency. Then at the end, you had the farm sector saying, `Thanks very much for letting us keep our diesel fuel rebate,' for God's sake. `Thanks very much for letting us keep it.' God save me. What are you trying to say, Minister?Let me go to your observations about the Natural Heritage Trust, environmental investment and landcare. At no point in the last three years have we opposed the investments in environment or landcare issues in the budget. The point we have made is that, again, it has been a sleight of hand trick, because the programs that were formally funded as ongoing items on budget, such as funding for the Murray-Darling Commission, funding for landcare, funding for a range of environmental programs, were simply collected together, rebadged and called the Natural Heritage Trust.That is fine, but do not try to deceive people that you suddenly produced a great new dollop of money for environmental spending when what you have simply done is to consolidate a range of programs that had been there, called them something else and made great play of it.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Are you serious? Are you actually serious?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—I thought the Murray-Darling Commission was a classic one. I forget the actual figures. Something in the order of $200 million to the year 2000 was the allocation for them. Out you came, as part of your billion dollars, allocating the Murray-Darling Commission an extra $11 million, I think it was, calling it the grand year 2000 plan. Big deal! You did not cut their funding, but do not go out and try to tell them that they suddenly got this great new boost in funding, for heaven's sake. Just be straight about it. There is no problem with us about these things. We are very supportive of investment in environmental programs.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—There's a big problem. You don't understand at all.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The minister can have a go in a moment.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—I absolutely understand it. Let me say, though, that, in the current landcare tax incentive that you provided in the budget, which we will be supporting—the 34c in the dollar rebate for low income farmers—your $80 million budget allocation is predicated on these farmers spending something in the order of a quarter of a billion dollars over the next four years. I wonder whether that is feasible. I hope it can come to be so, but it may well be an amount that is quite an overestimate. (Time expired)10:17:004707Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I have to say again that I genuinely wish, in the interests of constructive debate in this country, that my opposite number, the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), would acquaint himself with the facts and try to develop a real understanding of what we have done. By no stretch of any imagination can Agriculture—Advancing Australia be described as a rebadging of existing programs. There are completely new programs with completely new incentives and objectives built into them that have obviously been completely and absolutely lost on my opposite number. I challenge him now: will you accept from me the offer of a full briefing from my department on Agriculture—Advancing Australia?CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—I don't need it, my friend.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You do need it. I asked a group of farmers the other day whether they knew who my opposite number was in this country—30 of them—and none of them could name him.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—They were unsure who you were.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I was just standing there right in front of them.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—It is interesting that you always resort to the class warfare. Mr Deputy Speaker, they resort to the oldest trick in the book—the class warfare stuff—at the drop of a hat. One of them makes cheap and gratuitous remarks about the fact that I do not wear double-breasted suits—because I do not happen to particularly like them—while he was wearing one in the House the other day. It is trivial and pathetic beyond belief.I simply state as a matter of fact that it is perfectly obvious that my opposite number does not understand Agriculture—Advancing Australia and that he would do very well indeed to have a briefing on it. I challenge him to accept from me a briefing from my department so that he has a reasonable understanding of it and he can actually look at the real new money in it.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—You'd better offer it to the NFF. It's not me, mate, it's the NFF.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—The NFF were fully involved in its implementation and its design. My point stands. It is quite simple: my opposite number is not interested in an informed debate on this matter. He is not willing to acquaint himself with the reality of the detail of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia policy. He stands condemned by his own refusal to look at the facts.When it comes to some of the other matters that he has raised, I really think much the same applies. I make the same general offer. I think that he would do very well indeed to go and secure for himself a full briefing from my departmental officers on the policies that we are implementing, the resources that we have allocated for rural Australia. At the same time, perhaps it would be useful to ensure that he has an understanding of the value of broad based economic reform to the farm sector, which is a price taker. Eighty per cent of agricultural product from this country is exported. It sells into markets where we have little or, in most cases, no control over prices received.Therefore, the most important area that we can possibly hope to address in this country is input costs. Input costs involve everything from the broad economic parameters that the government operates and impacts on such things as inflation. Under Labor, inflation averaged 5.7 per cent for 13 years. Under us, we are now below two per cent and, at the moment, we are actually in a negative inflation environment. Interest rates cost the farm sector, with high levels of indebtedness, a great deal of money and restrict their opportunity to recover, pay off debt and re-invest. There is also the currency, which now finds itself genuinely floating when, as ABARE estimates indicate, in the Labor Party's term of office, because of the differential between our interest rates and American interest rates, speculation meant that the currency was always higher than it would otherwise have been—again, impacting negatively on farmers.Plainly, my opposite number is also not aware of the impact of wholesale sales tax remaining, despite the so-called rebate arrangements for farmers. It cascades through the system. It is built into the cost of all of their inputs—into transport in particular, where wholesale sales tax applies to virtually every piece of transport equipment in the country, not to mention fuel excise. These are important issues. They warrant quality debate, not trite, throwaway lines that reflect a genuine lack of understanding of farm policy.10:22:004709O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—In respect of the question of whether there has been what I would describe as a hoax or an attempt to deceive farmers into thinking that they have something new and special—and, again, in terms of the briefing that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) is talking about, I suggest he needs to offer it to the NFF because they clearly have got it as wrong as I have in his eyes—let us just take one classic case: the farm management deposit scheme, which is estimated as being worth $60 million in this set of allocations.The minister in his speech—not in that of the last five minutes, but in the one earlier—made the claim that they have transformed and cleaned up Labor's mess in this particular field with the IEDs and the FMBs that were about. There is a very interesting question to ask the minister here. First of all, let us ask: what is new and different? Was there previously a scheme in place for farmers to average income from good years to poor years, and average out their tax liability as a result? The answer is: yes, there was, originally created in the form of income equalisation deposits with certain conditions.I remember having discussions with the NFF during the late 1980s that led to modifications to IEDs and also the introduction of what was then called farm management bonds. The eligibility criteria and the way they worked are absolutely identical to the new farm deposit scheme now introduced by the government, with one exception—that is, that you have privatised them. We are not opposing that. If they are being held in a private sector banking institution, that is fine. Previously they were managed by DPIE and Treasury. Big deal! But do not tell farmers that all of a sudden they have some new, whiz-bang income averaging deposit scheme or management bond that previously was not there which is estimated at $60 million in the budget.On announcement day, one factor emerged that is critically different from what has now come out in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. On announcement day, there was no minimum qualifying period. That was the essential difference with Labor's programs. Labor's programs required that the funds had to be held in those deposit schemes for at least 12 months or, if they were to be taken out earlier, for the benefits to be obtained, there had to be hardship provisions.The government has removed the criteria relating to the hardship provisions; it now has simply introduced the bill with a 12-month minimum qualifying period. So the funds have to stay there for 12 months. But the effect of the 20c in the dollar tax rate is identical and the income averaging component is identical. The only thing that is different is that you can hold it in a private sector institution and the interest earned on it will be fully tax chargeable. Under the former Labor program, because the funds were being held by DPIE and Treasury in their certificates, the tax was not part of the total interest earned because it was acknowledged that the interest component would be lower than the commercial rate.So, if you go to the fine detail of this, the program is absolutely no different, the criteria hardly vary at all and the net result to the farmer is absolutely no different. If the minister wishes, he and I could go through the AAA component by component and he could tell me how wonderful Farmbiz is, for instance. We could then bring forward from the 1995 budget the comparative Labor program that did exactly the same task, it was called something different and it allocated exactly the same amount of funds. Some of them were even cut in your budget; in some of these areas Labor actually provided more. If you want to sit down and have a component by component, piece by piece debate with me about the bits and pieces of the AAA, let us have it. But you will get exactly the same result as you just got on IEDs: you will get a detailed analysis, and people will understand that what you are talking is tripe.10:27:004710Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I think the point is clearly established: my opposite number, the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) does not comprehend these packages. New money in Agriculture—Advancing Australia, by the way, is $235 million. Since you frequently quote the National Farmers Federation as the authority on this, I make the point that, in relation to farm management deposits, that organisation made it very plain that we had introduced a workable and attractive scheme that would bring farmers back into it—because yours did not. So you quote the NFF; I quote them back at you.Again, I make my offer: I challenge you to accept a full briefing from my people on agricultural policy, in the interests of Australian farmers having a more informed debate and your making a contribution that must be taken seriously, which sees you seriously challenging and not simply making trite observations about agricultural policy in this country. I believe that would enable us to genuinely advance the interests of farmers in this country. I do not say those things lightly. Those around me know that it is an observation I have made many times during the time that you have been the shadow minister.I am quite happy to have a detailed debate with you at any time, my friend, about Agriculture—Advancing Australia. But I would suggest that we do not waste one another's time. You get a formal briefing from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy—that is a generous offer—and then you might be in a position to be able to have an intelligent debate about it.I thank those who have contributed to the debate for their observations. I simply make the offer that, if anyone else would like detailed information on any of the programs under EA or DPIE and the relevant expenditures, I would be more than happy to provide it.10:29:004710O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I want to conclude some remarks I made earlier about the provision for the 34c in the dollar rebate for low income farmers who make expenditure on landcare. There are some principles involved here which we are happy to support, but they do involve expenditure from the Natural Heritage Trust, which in itself comes from the sale of one-third of Telstra. So the situation is that we have sold one-third of a major public asset, and we have put to the Australian people that the funds from the sale of that asset would be used to reduce debt or for public environmental expenditure. Those funds are now being made available as a tax rebate for farmers for works done on their properties. That is a further shift in the allocation of public funding principles. I am not opposing it but I am making it known that that is what is happening.The comment I made before about the $80 million budget estimate of that expenditure is one that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) should give some thought to. It is a 34c in the dollar tax rebate, and it is estimated that the cost to revenue will be $80 million. That assumes that low income farmers will be spending in the order of $240 million either in cash or in kind on what will be classified as eligible landcare expenditure.This at least raises the question: how on earth will low income farmers be able to make $240 million worth of eligible landcare expenditure? Therefore, is this estimate just another attempt at deception about how big and wonderful this program is, or has the government got some view that somehow low income farmers are going to have more money than they have had up to date and will actually be able to make expenditure of that order? Or will we find, in two or three years time, that it was a gross overestimate? And that if it was a gross overestimate, then it did not work: and if it did not work, is there a better way of doing it?I am not saying at this point that I know of any better way of encouraging low income farmers to expend more on their properties. But I am saying that I well understand why it is a 34c rebate, and that if it is given as a tax deduction when your income is as low as $20,000 then your marginal rate is well below 34c. I well understand that. I understand the point that it at least makes the tax effect for low income farmers equal to that of higher income farmers. But I do make the point that it is predicated on $240 million worth of eligible expenditure. I wonder where on earth one would draw that kind of estimate from.To sum up my earlier contribution, I think the government has considerably underestimated both the long-term effects of the climate change conditions we are experiencing and the impact on agriculture in particular from the Asian downturn. I ask the minister to go back and look at the comments of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) in the Australian Financial Review around September last year. When he was asked what would be the impact on the Australian economy if there were a downturn in agricultural demand from Asia, he answered—and I think I can remember his exact words—`Let's not get too excited about it. Agriculture is only three per cent of GDP.'I think that statement reflects my starting point about the position round the budget table. You are going to need to give additional support to farmers over the next few years, if you are still in office, and you will need a lot more support from the Treasurer than that. (Time expired)Proposed expenditures agreed to.Department of the Prime Minister and CabinetProposed expenditure, $1,104,926,000Department of the TreasuryProposed expenditure, $1,953,646,000Department of Finance and AdministrationProposed expenditure, $783,127,000Advance to the Minister for Finance and AdministrationProposed expenditure, $175,000,000Provision for Running Costs BorrowingProposed expenditure, $20,000,000Proposed expenditures agreed to.Department of DefenceProposed expenditure, $11,505,776,000Department of Veterans' AffairsProposed expenditure, $289,153,00010:36:004712Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Yesterday we heard allegations in the parliament that the Labor Party's foreign affairs document was supposedly borrowing from other documents. Again, in the grievance debate last evening similar claims were made. But if we look at the area of defence, we see that the Liberal Party, from their own statements, seem to have done a little of the same preparation that they allege the current opposition has done.One of the consistent claims from a variety of spokesmen when the coalition was in opposition was that Australia was in a situation where its defence forces were basically very undermanned. That was a consistent appeal to the Australian electorate and to people in the armed forces and it indicated that we were unable to defend ourselves and that we needed more personnel. It is quite interesting to note that in this budget we see a continuation of the reality that has followed the coalition's ascent to office.All the rhetoric in the world about how they are going to make it more efficient, more agile and more able at the sharp end does not for one moment in any way answer the reality that we see another 1,713 full-time ADF positions earmarked to disappear in this budget. The coalition's cumulative reduction is forecast to reach 4,000 uniform positions. Essentially, 4,000 are going to disappear. Part of the reason for that is that the defence efficiency review panel was staffed almost totally by the corporate end of town.It is all right to say in any organisation that there is value in getting outside analysis to question whether things are going in the right direction, because all groups get very cosy and very settled. But the reality of what is happening in this field is that it is driven by ideology. That is the dominant sentiment of what is happening in this portfolio and at other ends of the government. As I say, it starts at that essential point in that the people driving the inquiry really had a minimal input from defence personnel. A very minor number of those were actually doing the examination. Under the current coalition government's plans, 4,700 uniform positions will disappear and another 7,000 are under execution orders. Also, 3,100 civilian personnel will disappear and another 5,900 are under review. Despite that very firm 1996 election commitment that one had to be very worried about the low staffing levels, what we have seen in reality under them is in actual fact in very stark contrast—substantial, continuing reductions. There is constant concern on the part of the personnel that their jobs are on the line and that they could go. There are also constant threats of outsourcing of virtually all sectors of the defence forces.As I say, if we start having rhetoric in this parliament about a party not understanding where they were before coming into government, we see it in this field. In actual fact, there have been consistent reductions. The same goes for bases. Is it any wonder in Australian politics that One Nation is seriously eroding the National Party base when we see their total inability to question this ideologically driven policy of closing down significant bases around the country in areas such as Wagga and many other rural towns? It does not take much to speculate about the impact that those base closures will have in areas such as Queenscliff—and we know there is a lot of controversy about that in Victoria—in Wagga, and in Point Cook in Victoria. What we are seeing is a totally ideologically driven determination to reduce employment levels in the defence forces and to cause people concern as to where their future lies. People have skills which are, in some cases, transferable. We know that, but there are others who, because of their age, have minimal possibilities of getting employment in other sectors. The next matter I want to turn to is the Defence Housing Authority. There has been no indication by the current government that this will not be privatised. There is no clarification in these budget papers. One of the realities is the continuing shift of people to WA, the Northern Territory and other areas more remote from the major capital cities. (Time expired)10:41:004713Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I want to talk a little bit about veterans' affairs. I do not know whether the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) is going to find his way here or not, but I will make one brief remark while the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) is here. We are dealing with these matters together, so I am not sure whether the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will appear, but I am happy to proceed on that basis. While the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott) is here, I should make a point to the Minister for Defence. I had not intended to, but it seems to be the perfect opportunity to raise the issue of the Sydney Harbour foreshore and the intentions of the Department of Defence in respect of Georges Heights and Middle Head.I thought the member for Warringah might help a little if I raise this issue now; I am sure I would have his support. It is a matter on which the minister and I have not exactly seen eye to eye. I will not go through it all again. He is aware of my concerns. He has written me a rather unfriendly letter back, which is a little out of character, I would have to say, telling me that I did not know what I was talking about and that I should go back up to Middle Head and have another look. I have written back and said, `Thanks for the offer but I've got other things on my mind in the immediate future.' I want to put on the record my continuing concerns. I am only reflecting the concerns of the residents there who, admittedly, I suppose, have a vested interest in it. The member for Warringah is aware of the issue. He may wish to make a contribution, as I said, because he should know more about it than I do. I only got into it because I went there, had a look and was concerned. As a member of the Defence Subcommittee, it was legitimate for me to be concerned. I then had a number of the residents, whom I actually knew from my former life, approach me about it. In my mind, those concerns are not yet totally allayed. They may well be in the mind of the member for Warringah. I am not trying to overstate it, and I do not know whether he wants to say something. But I think the concerns remain. While the Minister for Defence is here, that is the only issue I wanted to raise.10:43:004713Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I have been invited to comment on a matter by my friend the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford). I believe that the whole question of military lands on Sydney Harbour is in very good hands—the hands of the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard).10:44:004713Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The second issue is the question of the future of the Defence Housing Authority. We are aware of the dire circumstances of defence housing which preceded the 1987 establishment of this authority. In 1986 we had a situation where a little over 5,000 homes in this country in the defence sector could be classed as good quality, while a massive 18,300 were in contrast defined as below standard. Under both governments in the intervening period there has been a substantial, continuing improvement. In 1996 there were estimates that nearly 15,000 could be in the good quality class and, with the spread of leasing by the department, a further 5,200-odd were classed as good quality leased property. Only 600 houses were regarded as substandard or below standard. So there has been a substantial, continuing improvement in the housing available to defence personnel. I do not think many people here would dispute that housing is fundamental to the morale of service personnel and to retaining their families. Housing is a fundamental, central, basic part of their lifestyle. It needs to be of a good quality. Mrs Sue Hamilton of the Office of the Status of Women, in her 1986 report entitled Supporting service families, said that the low standard of service housing was a significant contributor to poor family morale in the services. That is extremely accurate. But, once again, there seems a thrust by the government in this field to say, `If it is possible to sell anything in this country or to privatise it, then let us do it—let us just do it for the sake of it.' In this case, I think we have to question whether the market forces are such that it will be to the advantage of defence personnel. I can say genuinely that both people in the forces and interest groups—those service groups outside that take up their cause, including veterans groups—are very concerned that this matter has not been clarified, that it is dragging on, and that there is the possibility of the housing authority being sold. In the markets these service personnel go into—in towns where there is a base and where they have not previously lived—there can be an extreme demand for housing and changing demands at the end of people's periods in the forces. People often do not have local knowledge; they may never have been to these towns; they do not have family there; they do not have the experience of the market; they do not know the availability of transport there; they do not know where services lie in these country towns. Even in regional centres one needs to have a fair base of knowledge, although I appreciate that the defence forces have tried to make sure that people are fairly cognisant of local conditions.But the housing authority is there for a very defined purpose: to provide proper, decent, cheap housing for defence personnel. I do not have any confidence in the outcome if we allow the private sector to come into this area. Defence personnel have enough challenges to face in a new area—establishing new friends, becoming familiar with the services, and often with the spouse requiring employment in a new sector. On the matter of spouse employment, it is worth saying that one of the major thrusts of the employment policy of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) is going to drastically hit defence families.A fact of life is that amongst the many groups now for the first time denied access to help in gaining employment are the spouses of defence personnel because they are not on benefits. They are not clients of the social security system. So when they go to these towns there is not going to be the previous free assistance. One has to treat this very seriously, because a family that has been used to two incomes—whether in metropolitan Sydney or Melbourne, or out near Ingleburn, Richmond or wherever—is going to be in dire circumstances if the wife cannot gain a job in a new employment market and does not have government assistance.We do express our concern, as do many other interest groups in this field, about the continuing failure of the government to clarify exactly where the Defence Housing Authority is going. Indisputably, this is a particular market. It is a select market. On occasion the market is in areas where there is not that much housing infrastructure. The government has to seriously question where it is going if privatisation is on the agenda. (Extension of time granted)Finally, I want to deal with aspects relating to defence personnel. There has been a continuing series of reviews by the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop). The list is getting quite endless. At the end of this parliament, regardless who is elected, her three years in the portfolio will be clarified by one thing—and that is reviews. Let us go through those that I can readily recall, and I have no doubt the portfolio knowledge of the minister at the table, the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan), is such that he will know a few others.We have had the military compensation inquiry. The first review was announced on 30 October 1996 and a further review announced in June 1997. We have the corruption in the navy inquiry still ongoing. We have had the sexual harassment in the ADF inquiry. Then we turn to the review of military discipline tours at the defence correctional facility and the review of overseas service entitlements for veterans. In some cases, these inquiries have been going on and on with very little results, except that every three or four weeks a `zero tolerance of sexual harassment' press release comes out which gets a run for a day or two. Some leak occurs from one of these inquiries that someone got hit in the head somewhere, or some such thing, and that gives the minister another chance to say that she has zero tolerance. Not one of these reviews has resulted in a final report being presented to this parliament—some of them have been going for years on end—and no resulting action plan has been announced by the government.Two of the current inquiries are the direct result of botched reviews that she conducted earlier. The military compensation scheme was reviewed after the Black Hawk accident, but this review was given such restrictive terms of reference that it was only able to propose changes that would benefit ADF personnel who sustained extremely severe injuries, such as quadriplegia and paraplegia, and the widows and dependent children of those who were killed. So it had only a narrow, restricted oversight. When the furore continued from the family, friends and service groups connected with other disabled servicemen, these complaints about the unresolved problems forced her to announce in June 1997 a further review to develop `a single self-contained military compensation scheme for peacetime service which covers only military personnel.' There has been very little coming out of that second review nearly a year later. The further review of overseas service entitlements would not have been necessary if the coalition had honoured its 1996 election undertaking to resolve all outstanding anomalies in relation to both medals and repatriation benefits. Instead, it conducted an inadequate, bureaucratic exercise that engaged in no consultation with the ex-service community, ignored many episodes of service, and short-changed two groups whose cases were considered. Once again, both of those reviews are the result of the inflexible and narrow way in which the minister constructed those inquiries. Years later we still have not had the outcome.I see that the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) is here. I noticed the other day one of his press releases from when he was a loyal coalition member. In 1996, believe it or not, he was out there telling his electorate that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) was basically doing something about disability pensioners to try to make sure the pension would not be counted for social security purposes. I admit that, in Senator Newman's case, this was probably a one-off exception. It is different for the other minister in this field; there are, as I said, six or seven inquiries going nowhere. In answer to a question on notice, Minister Bishop said:The Government determined that other genuine anomalies brought to its attention, which are substantiated sufficiently to warrant further examination will also be reviewed. As a consequence, the following are currently under review; RAAF at Ubon, Thailand, during the Vietnam War; HMAS Parramatta, HMAS Sydney, HMAS Vampire and HMAS Yarra during the Indonesian Confrontation; RAN Communications Detachment in Singapore during the Malayan Emergency—Et cetera. There is widespread concern in the veteran community that the situation of naval personnel who served with the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve during the Malayan Emergency is not being reviewed, despite the Senate's vote on 22 October 1997 requesting that the government grant these veterans access to the service pension. We know that Senator Tambling, representing the government, indicated that the situation with the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve and Ubon would get serious consideration. Eight months later, we are told that it is a minor priority in the government, that they have not really allocated many resources to it and that it might eventually, one day in the future, have an outcome. (Time expired)10:54:004716McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLANHT4BarkerLPDefence10—I would like to address the matter raised earlier by the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) because it is a separate matter from the galaxy of matters raised by the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson). I know that the member for McPherson has been worried about the Sydney Harbour defence properties for some time. He knows that I have disagreed with his view on the matter and I have disagreed with the publicly expressed view of Premier Carr as well. The reason for that is that we do have a number of properties still residing under the auspices of the Department of Defence. There are a lot of them, but I think the ones that the member for McPherson is interested in are North Head, Middle Head, Georges Heights, Woolwich, Cockatoo Island and perhaps Garden Island, although the last two really come into a different category.In regard to Garden Island and Cockatoo Island, there are some remedial works to be done in both of those areas which need to be done in a hurry. I just have to say that there is no way on earth the New South Wales government would have the resources to deal with the Cockatoo Island pollution. Nobody is denying that the pollution has been there and has been formed over 100 years of shipbuilding, manufacturing and so forth, but there are some very serious matters to be dealt with and it is our estimate that it will cost somewhere between $40 million and $50 million.The business of holding up remedial works that the Department of Defence ought to be doing in other parts of Sydney Harbour is not helping the Cockatoo Island situation as well. Quite frankly, I have expressed the view a number of times that, if we could fix Cockatoo Island before the Olympics—or at least remedy the pollution problems and solve some of the other problems—that would be a good thing for the benefit of Sydney and Australia coming into that enormous event.In regard to Middle Head, in 1979, the federal government gave back to the New South Wales government the end of the peninsula on Middle Head. Absolutely nothing has been done about that since. It is just sitting there with a fence across it in a degraded state. Our plan was to do something about the remediation of that degraded land which had been given back to the New South Wales government in 1979 and they were given a whole lot more land, which you might call foreshore land.To do that, you needed to be able to extract some dollars out of that land which is already built on, and I am talking about Georges Heights of course. As the member for McPherson would have seen, no doubt, there are a lot of buildings that are old, and there are housing buildings and other buildings that should be pulled down. At the same time, there are some rather beautiful old stone buildings and other historical works that need to be put into very good order, and that was the part of the plan as well.I have to say that I got an award for environmental remediation in the past and I am very concerned to make sure that we enhance all those values, but simply to say that they have got to go back to the people, or some generic phrase like that, does not necessarily produce the result that I know the honourable member wants. I wanted to raise that because I want the same result. Therefore, the foreshore area should be remediated and produced in a state which is in no way an eyesore and which beautifies Sydney Harbour again, but there are other areas and assets which have to produce the money to do that. I just wanted to say those things. I am very pleased to hear my colleague the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott) say that the matter is in the very good hands of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Defence. For the first time for some time, I agree with him totally.The member for Reid raised a couple of other subjects, the first being the undermanning of the Defence Force. In particular, he was talking about the army. He said that we are now coming down to an indicated target over time of 50,000 people in the Australian Defence Force, and that is true. (Extension of time granted) The reason for that, obviously, is that, over many years, we have been concerned about the under-resourcing of the Australian Defence Force. If you want an example, and I notice that graphs and graphics are all the rage these days in these parliamentary proceedings—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—At least it's not a map of Australia.HT4McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLAN—No, but this is a map of what you promised, in blue, and what you delivered in the Defence Force for every year in the first eight years that you were in government—promise this, deliver less. That is exactly what you did when you were in government, and that is why we are under-resourced. We got to a situation where the money went down from 2.65 per cent of GDP to tip under 1.9 per cent now.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—HT4McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLAN—I am telling you that the fact is that you under-resourced the defence department and we have to fix it up. That is why we conducted the defence efficiency review: to get rid of duplication, to get rid of waste and to get rid of inefficiency. We will save $1 billion in recurrent terms, which you were wasting. That is what we will save. The other point about this reduction of personnel is that you actually got rid of 13,500 people during your term.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—You said it was undermanned.HT4McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLAN—You got rid of 13,500 people in your term. What is more, having done that, you had 42 per cent of them in combat or combat related positions. We are moving them to 65 per cent in combat or combat related positions. Just work that out. It might be a bit complicated. It would be too complicated for the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), but just work out what that gives you in effective ability to defend this country. It actually increases the ability to defend this country.However, the main point in all of this discussion is the matter of the waste that was produced by the Labor Party in producing assets that were, as described yesterday by my colleague the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop), for but not with. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), your leader, said in parliament yesterday, `But that's what you do in peacetime.' Work that out! When you want to go to the Gulf, you have some assets that you cannot send and you cannot fill them up because these days you cannot go down to the corner shop and order a bolt for a .303. We are not in that context at all; we are in the context of taking years to fill up the hollowness that we had in some of those assets. I do not want to go through all of those assets. You know them as well as I do. The theory behind your leader's interjection in the parliament was that in peacetime you do one thing and, when war is approaching, you do something else. That is fantastic, if you know when it is approaching. But, as it takes you four years to fill those assets up and make sure that they are current, how on earth are you going to do that? It is a nonsensical proposition.Even you know now when you look at it that, if you look across the whole raft of assets in the Australian Defence Force, you could not contract them out, even if you had the money, and get them fixed in the time. It is not a possibility. So you have to make sure that, when you build an asset, you build an asset that is current to do what you want it to do at the time. You will still have other assets that get behind. There is no doubt about that because technology moves on, and technology is moving on faster. One day—we are not quite there—presumably with software improvements and so forth, you will be pulling a box out of here and putting another one back in. We have not got to that stage in most of these circumstances yet.I have to say to the Australian Labor Party that, whatever you thought the circumstances were in the past, it is not the same now. We have a big catch-up job to do. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the army alone just to get rid of the hollowness—let alone buying ASLAVs, new equipment and what have you; just to get rid of the hollowness that you left. You do not have to ask me whether that was true or not. Your own report about the army—it was written in your time—was the most self-scathing report that anybody could ever possibly read. Effectively, it said you had left the army 15 years behind the times. So that is the answer to your question. I could go on about the Anzacs and about a whole lot of other things as well. (Extension of time granted)I will just finish on the subject of the DHA. There is a review going on in DHA, and there are other reviews going on as well. But that review is still under way, and it is being considered by Minister Bishop and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey).8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—That is reassuring.HT4McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLAN—I notice that in the Senate you also got up a review, an all encompassing review, on military compensation, on military discipline. I also note that most of the eventualities that are coming before that committee, with the exception of one or two, are things that happened during your time.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—HT4McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLAN—If you want me to go through them, there are the submarines, Mr Mackelmann and a few other things like that. We are trying to make sure that, when you have a military discipline panel, not only is it expert, not only are the people on the panel people who have not had anything to do with the circumstances that gave rise to that tribunal—which was a difficulty, as you well know, in the Black Hawk matter, because we do not have an enormous army like the US, so somebody in the hierarchy has had things to do with keeping Black Hawks going and so on—but also that we give the perception to the people out there that fairness is being done. That is why I made the Black Hawk matter an open inquiry, and in the Westralia inquiry we have not only made it open but also introduced a couple of outsiders for reasons of added expertise but also for reasons of public perception so that in 10 years time somebody cannot come back here and say that whatever we did back in 1998, 1997 or 1996 was not reasonable. Some of these inquiries and reviews that you are complaining about are necessary, but they are necessary because of deficiencies that came up in earlier times, and a number of those times were when you were in control.11:07:004719Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I am waiting for the response by the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) to the problem that has been raised by the shadow minister for defence science and personnel, the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson)—that is, the withdrawal of employment services for defence personnel.I believe that this is a fairly significant issue. Defence personnel and their families make a lot of sacrifices for the Australian community. They are often moved around the country, which causes considerable disruption to their lives. With their being moved from one centre to another, one of the issues with which we must contend is the attempt to create opportunities for their families to integrate into the surrounding community. I think that is fairly important, because it is about developing opportunities to make family contacts and, in doing so, making it easier for the family to become part of the local community.In that context, I am seriously concerned about the creation, through the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, of two classes of people amongst those who are looking for a job at the moment. Defence Force personnel not only make a contribution to Australia's defences but also actively pay their way through the PAYE tax system. As from 1 May, when they are moved from one centre to another, because one member of their family is employed by the defence forces, if their spouse or partner is unemployed and looking for a job—and the careers of these spouses or partners, one must understand, are disrupted on a regular basis—as a result of changes to employment services, those spouses and partners are no longer entitled to free employment services to assist them in obtaining casual, part-time or full-time work which will help them and their families to settle in the local community.But it is worse than that. In some states and territories, because of that denial—and it is a blatant denial in the creation of two classes of unemployed in this country as at 1 May—those partners and spouses, who are making considerable sacrifices for the Australian community, can be required to actually pay for employment services, those states and territories being South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory. And with those states, for example, just think of the development of the Tindal base over the last decade; think of the defence personnel in the ACT or Victoria. In those states and territories now, those partners and spouses, having been deemed ineligible for a free employment service by this government, can be required to put their hands in their pockets and pay employment agents for assistance to get jobs in local communities. Not only is that discriminatory; it is unhelpful to Australian Defence Force personnel and their families.I would have thought that a real, practical and decent Minister for Defence would have fought tooth and nail in the recent budget process. The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), in his own dogged, ideological way, has been unwilling to help those Defence Force personnel and their families by actually announcing some measure to assist those people in this budget.Therefore, I suggest that Defence Force personnel would find the budget papers relating to the Department of Defence more interesting for what they do not say about that problem than for what they do say. The Minister for Defence ought to take up this fight; he ought to take it up with the cabinet and make sure that this government does something on a comprehensive basis to assist, through free employment services, all Defence Force personnel, as they are moved from town to town, to get access to work on a casual, part-time or permanent basis.11:11:004720Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—The matter that has been raised by the shadow minister for employment and training, the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), really would be better raised during the consideration of the employment estimates, which are to follow these defence estimates. But if I may just say a few words at this time—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order! I accepted that on the basis of the defence personnel.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I will address this issue in the employment estimates.11:11:004720McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLANHT4BarkerLPDefence10—I am quite happy to address this matter. As the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) has said in the House on a number of occasions, `No job seeker, whether or not on benefits, will be charged a fee.' As I understand it, that still stands.The matter of defence personnel and their wives has been raised, quite properly. We have this problem all the time: somebody has a job, they move from Sydney to Darwin or wherever, and it is a very difficult problem. But we have something called the Defence Jobs Club, which is where these people are specifically catered for. These jobs clubs also have practical courses to enable job seekers to improve their search skills and so on.Members opposite were very critical that I, as the minister, had not done anything about making sure that there was a facility for these people, when moving around, to be looked after in some way. But you might remember—at least the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) will remember—that, prior to the last election, in our policy platform, we promised to save $125 million a year and redirect that into various other aspects. One of the areas into which we redirected it in 1997-98 and 1998-99, with a total coming to $4.1 million, was spouse employment. That says—and let me read it to you:. . . an enhanced spouse employment assistance program particularly targeting remote localities and development of a spouse employment database.In other words, we know we have a problem; of course, there is a problem. I worry about this, but in some areas historically we have moved people around about every two years. That is to give the ADF employee a tick in this category and that category, and so forth, so he or she can move on up the ladder. But the spouse is obviously left in the circumstance that you have described. We have been well aware of that matter.You cannot tell me that you were well aware of that matter 2¼ years ago and that we have done less—because actually we have just done more. So you cannot say that for 13 years you had it all organised, because that was the arrangement before: every couple of years, you moved people around to new jobs. I suggest that the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) go back and have a look at what arrangements were in place prior to March 1996, and then have a look to see whether they have got worse or better since. I think he will find that the circumstances are still the same; that is, people are still moving around, although I do have some reservations about the number of times that we ought to move people around.We have just had an example come up in acquisition in recent times. If you get somebody who has expertise in a very difficult and technical area, such as in the acquisition area, and who is not going to become the chief of the Defence Force some time in the future, then it is crazy to move that person on. So we are looking at some areas of expertise where people should stay much longer and where some people may stay for life because they are so good at it, they like doing it and so on. I say to the member for Batman that that was a good political statement just now, but the facts of the matter would seem to be different.11:16:004721Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I understand the reservations that the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) has with respect to moving people around—the potential disruption it causes to defence forces in some circumstances, and, more importantly, the disruption it causes to families, especially young families, with respect to the partner or spouse having to give up a career opportunity. I am of the view that we all have room to improve our performance. The truth of the matter is that 2¼ years ago the situation was entirely different. There were not two classes of unemployed in Australia—those classified as eligible job seekers and those classified as ineligible job seekers.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Batman is perfectly entitled to make these points in the DEETYA estimates, and I really think he should be required to do so. The points he wishes to raise are general points about the employment market and employment services. They are not specific to defence at all.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—I will allow the honourable member for Batman to continue, but he should direct the comments to the defence area, if that is his concern.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—In context, I think this is very relevant to the defence area. The minister has appropriately referred to the defence jobs clubs. The reality is that that is a short-term solution against a far more comprehensive system that existed previously of a widespread commitment to jobs clubs all around Australia for all Australia's unemployed. With respect to those unemployed people, since March 1996 $1.5 billion has been cut out of programs that were used to assist people, including defence personnel, with activities to get a job. As I said, a lot of those unemployed people were related to defence personnel. I turn to the issue of access to employment program assistance to try to get a job.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—On defence personnel only.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I am speaking about defence personnel. Unlike some, I cannot separate them from the rest of the Australian community because they are all Australians, all trying to do their best for the nation. I am very proud of the job that the defence personnel—EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: these points are perfectly reasonable ones for the member for Batman to make but at the right time, and this is not the right time. He will have plenty of time to make these points. We need not further detain the Minister for Defence on this subject.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Batman must return to the subject of the matter before the chair, which is the Department of Defence.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I very much agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not going to be bludgeoned into submission and I am not going to walk away from the fact that I think we ought to stand up for defence personnel and their families. No-one should walk away from the need to look after defence personnel and their families. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not shut up, as the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Abbott) is endeavouring to force you to get me to do with respect to these issues.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! You will comply with the standing orders, and I will give the ruling on the standing orders.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I will comply with the standing orders, Mr Deputy Speaker, and raise these issues because they are issues of major importance. I request that you continue to protect my right to raise these issues in the Main Committee.The truth of the matter is that defence personnel are worse off today with respect to their capacity to get a job because of the changes that have been made. It is a very telling point. Defence personnel and their spouses have lost the capacity to move around Australia and have access to a comprehensive free employment service. That is exceptionally important. Time and time again defence personnel and their families are contacting our office with examples of their being charged for employment services that were free prior to 1 May. It is legal to charge defence personnel and their families in some states and territories but it is illegal in other states and territories.I make this point: there is room to improve as a result of the changes that have been made from 1 May. I ask the Minister for Defence to take this very, very serious problem on board. Yes, there are defence jobs clubs, but they are a drop in the ocean compared with the system that existed prior to 1 May. Defence personnel and their families are entitled to better than the system that now exists around Australia post 1 May. They are being denied a comprehensive opportunity to get a job, be it part time, casual or full time, to integrate into the local community, and to make a major contribution to those local communities. For the sake of their families, defence personnel need to have that opportunity.I will not be silenced by the parliamentary secretary with respect to these very telling issues. If you want defence personnel in Australia, then you look after them and make sure that they have a comprehensive employment service. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Just before the minister commences, I welcome the distinguished visitors from Kenya to the Main Committee.11:21:004722McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLANHT4BarkerLPDefence10—When I was farming I used to send my kelpie around the mob of sheep I wanted to muster. Now my well-trained son does that instead. But the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) has sent his dog not around the outside of the paddock where the sheep are but around the outside of the boundary fence of the property and, in fact, around the boundary of the state in which the property is in. His all-encompassing claim, as you pointed out quite rightly, is quite outside this debate. You thought this was very serious when you were on your feet—Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—HT4McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLAN—If it is so serious, I put it to you: why do you not send, and why have you not sent, those complaints to my office? You have said that this has been happening since 1 May. I will be delighted to deal with those problems. You should have sent them around, as my colleagues would have done and do to other ministers every day of the week.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I have been raising these problems in the parliament.HT4McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLAN—No. You are making a public statement in the parliament, but if you want the problems of these individual people, who you are so concerned about, to be dealt with, then send them around to my office.11:23:004722Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I am going to talk about veterans' affairs. I appreciate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) being present as I want to raise a number of specific matters. In a contribution I made here last week on the veterans' entitlement amendment bill, I raised a number of issues. He took the opportunity when he responded to insult me or to patronise me. I was listening to the broadcast of the proceedings as I was not in the chamber at the time, but I wanted to take him to task on that.I made a number of remarks in my contribution about the appropriation for the veterans' affairs budget. I said that there had been reductions in some programs within the veterans' budget. He either did not hear me—he was not here when I spoke—or he was advised that I said that there had been a reduction in the budget. He quite correctly pointed out that there had been an overall increase in the appropriation of 7.2 per cent, although I think in fact it was 7.6 per cent. That was my understanding, anyway. As the minister said, that does not indicate a cut in the funding for veterans; in fact, it is an increase over the 12 months of something like $500 million.That was one of the matters that I wanted to raise. Yes, there is $500 million there. I assume that at least some of that will be the $500 million the government has allocated towards the gold card initiative, or at least some part of it. I just wanted a clarification that the veterans appropriation did include some money for that initiative. I understand that the minister introduced that bill into the parliament this morning, so I assume that some of that money will be in the 1998-99 budget.I do want to defend myself on the basis that there were—and you would only have to look at the appropriation—significant cuts in a number of different services. I readily admit that there are also increases in a number of other services, so the overall picture is that there is an increase. I could ask the minister why there is a decrease in health and medical research in relation to veterans' health care. I could ask him why there is a decrease in the Australian War Memorial veterans' commemorative activities. I could ask him why there is a decrease in residential and community care grants. I could ask him why there is a decrease in the refurbishment, reconstruction and relocation of war graves and related facilities. I could ask him why there is a decrease in payments to ex-service organisations to facilitate claims by eligible veterans. The point I was making before the minister's patronising comments that I had said that there was a decrease when there was in fact an increase related to my concerns about some particular programs. I ask those questions. There are other programs he can point to where there have been increases. I welcome, and the veterans community welcomes, the gold card initiative, but if that is the reason for the increase, one does not have to be too clever to work out that there must be reductions in the budget to fund that particular increase. I do not think the minister is that fast on his feet, but he might get a bit of advice to make it all add up for me.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He's no Reg Gasnier.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—He is no Reg Gasnier. You got it right, Martin. In fact, I do not think he is even a Martin Bella. We accept that. I actually asked for a departmental briefing on this and they hedged around that a little bit.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—He said you never go to his door.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—He said in his speech that I never went through his door. The fact is that I did not have to grovel to the minister to get help in veterans areas. I have a lot of friends who are veterans.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You know more about it than he does.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I do know a lot more about it than he does—or, indeed, ever will know about it. But the fact is that I have asked for a briefing. It will be too late now; they will probably offer it next week some time when I am back in my electorate. (Time expired)11:28:004724Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Obviously, the dominant aspect of this budget is the gold card. I think it was unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), through essentially genuine motives, in his first phraseology, conveyed to the Australian electorate and more particularly the Australian veterans community that essentially a wider group of people were getting this card than turned out to be the case in the end. As I say, I do not think that he attempted to mislead at all. I think it was just that he probably did feel that all Second World War veterans were to be granted the card. Obviously, whenever any of these extensions occur, there are vast numbers of individuals and other groups who feel that they should have an entitlement. By that, let us say, unfortunate and accidental phraseology, expectations have been increased considerably. I appreciate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) and the department, by contrast, have clearly made it evident from the beginning that this applies only to those people who saw active duty against hostile forces. As I say, there has been no blame on the part of the minister or the department, but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister probably just rushed, got a briefing and used terminology which led to people perhaps thinking that they were going to get it.Since then we have had a wide variety of groups feeling that they have a claim. Both the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) and I are consistently approached by these groups. One very impassioned group is the allied service men and women; people who say they have been here for 50 years, that they are Australian citizens and that they have worked all their lives, et cetera. We then have people who were in groups such as the Women's Auxiliary Air Force saying they volunteered and were willing to serve overseas and it was only unfortunate for them that they never got the opportunity. It goes on and on.Quite frankly, as is clear from the budget papers—I do not know whether the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) is correct in his inference that perhaps the gold card has come at the expense of other programs—the fact of life is that $500 million over a four-year period is a very significant expenditure. Any extensions beyond this have to be looked at fairly seriously and after great consideration by either side of politics. However, of the many groups that are out there clamouring for extensions, one oversight by the parties is Korea. When we made the First World War decision, we could be fairly confident in saying that everyone who was 70 years of age should get the gold card. There were not going to be many people that were overlooked; Australia did not participate in the Spanish Civil War or in any of the other interwar conflicts around the world. There was no international dispute. The Prime Minister did say that he thought that the extension to Korea and Vietnam should be on the same basis as the precedents set by the First World War and Second World War extensions. And, on the surface, that sounds very logical. But the fact is that, in the post-Second World War period, the onset of the Korean War was not too distant from the conclusion of hostilities in the Second World War—and the Korean War dragged on until 1956. So, on the Prime Minister's implied commitment that he thought that what Labor did in 1973 was correct and that the government was now doing the same thing essentially 53 to 55 years after the conflict, what we are talking about in regard to Korean veterans is that they should get this benefit in 2009 or 2011.Because we did not face this problem in the interwar years—we did not have people who were 70 years of age involved in other conflicts that I am aware of, because there were no interwar disputes—we had no people who fell between the cracks. We really do have to look at this problem because there is a distinct possibility that significant numbers of people who were in Korea have reached 70 years of age and, by the time that either side of politics says that on the past precedents they will get the gold card, they are going to be well in their 80s. I do not think this has really been thought through because, obviously, the focus has been on the Second World War people. They are the mass; they are the large numbers; and they are the dominant personalities in the service organisations that have had this as their first priority. It is also worth noting—given the kind of hullabaloo about this thing being from left field—that the Prime Minister has made it constantly obvious to the Australian electorate that the 1973 precedent was a good indicator. (Extension of time granted) He has consistently said that 1973 was a good precedent as to how we should extend the gold card. That is an important point because, for all the rhetoric about how glorious this decision was and how it broke new ground, the Prime Minister has said that 53 to 55 years is a reasonable time period after a conflict to grant this card. He also went on to say that, when we dealt with Korea and Vietnam down the track, he felt, as a person, as an individual and as a dominant player in our political system, that after 53 to 55 years they should get the gold card.Mr Forrest interjecting—8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—We are well aware of that. The member for Mallee obviously got a newsletter last night that told him that people who have disabilities get the gold card. Everyone else in the room is aware of that. That is not groundbreaking information. In case the member is not aware of this yet, what we are talking about is the extension to those people who do not have war related disabilities. The vast mass of people who were in Korea, Vietnam, the Second World War and the First World War received the gold card regardless of the absence of war related injuries. That is what we are talking about today. The point I am trying to make is that both sides of politics need to have a look at the Korean veterans and face the reality that large numbers of them are already over 70 years of age. A significant number of them were career servicemen, some of whom had been in the Second World War and some of whom had been long-term enlisted people. It has to be looked at down the track by both sides. The other point I am making is that, for all the rhetoric, for all the hullabaloo and for all the gala performances from the minister and the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has essentially said that the 1973 extension was a good precedent and that 53 to 55 years afterwards is roughly when we should do it. That is what this government has done now. That precedent was created in 1973. The other matter concerns the reference made by the member for McPherson to a reduction in assistance to service organisations in regard to helping clients. The minister looks a bit bedazzled by this. The member for McPherson made this claim. If that were the case, there must be grave concerns, because one of the serious problems in this department at the moment is legal aid. One does not see any new allocation, any new devotion of resources, to a very fundamental problem confronting the service community in this country.I refer to a letter from the Law Society of New South Wales, which is certainly not affiliated to the Labor Party. In the actual contemporary debates of politics in New South Wales, they very strongly attacked the Premier of the state this week over his treatment of a judge who has been before the parliament in regard to his services. But the Law Society—that responsible, conservative, respected organisation—made this point in correspondence dated 22 April to members of this parliament:In the 1997/98 budget the Commonwealth Government reduced its contribution to legal aid by 21%. Funding for legal aid ranks amongst the Government's lowest funding priorities. The Attorney-General's portfolio of which legal aid is part received only 2.4% of the Commonwealth appropriation (ranking 11th of 20 Departments).They went on to contrast defence, et cetera. They term this a significant and rapid reduction. They make the point that legal aid funding for criminal cases—YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This point relating to legal aid does not fall within the defence and veterans' affairs portfolios. The member should bring his contribution back relative to the bill before the committee.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! Give me a chance to rule on the matter. It has been a fairly wide-ranging debate, but the member for Reid should bring his comments back to the rather narrow specifications of this bill.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—With respect, there is an allocation in this portfolio to assist people to launch cases; is that correct?Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Sorry, it is in respect of mounting cases. The degree to which that is valuable and effective assistance relates to the overall picture of how people launch and fight veterans cases. Quite clearly, it is of substantial importance that veterans are able to launch cases. I know the minister is a bit embarrassed by his failure to do something about this matter in the Attorney-General's portfolio. I am quite surprised that the severe hurt to veterans in launching cases has occurred. I was quite amazed that the minister actually allowed this to go through to the keeper. This very substantial downturn, this very serious reduction in resources, has meant a series of decisions by state governments which directly affect veterans.It is not going to be answered by some technical attempt to say that legal aid is totally separate from and unrelated to this portfolio. As we know, in the first year of his reign in this portfolio, the minister made much of how he was helping various groups launch cases, how he was giving assistance to this and that RSL to do this and that and how many grants there were around the place. So it is intrinsically connected with the question of legal aid. What we have seen, as I said, is a serious reduction by the government, and the veterans community is not interested in this fight between the various coalition state governments around Australia and their federal counterparts.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—What have you got in New South Wales?8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—I am glad the minister asked that question because, as he is well aware, New South Wales did have one facility that no other state in this country had. Until last year, veterans in New South Wales were able to receive help for VRB cases from the Veterans Advocacy Service, a part of the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission. The minister raised New South Wales, and he is very correct. The New South Wales Labor government had a superior system of legal aid for veterans which was over and above that of every other state in this country. So I am very glad he raised that. But what happened to that specific service which was superior to the rest of the services in the country? The federal Attorney-General's Department insisted that it go. So I am very glad the minister raised New South Wales.As the minister is well aware, that is not the total picture, because changes to legal aid in this country have essentially had very major impacts around the country. In his own state of Queensland, we are seeing perhaps the greatest number of letters from advocacy groups, lawyers and RSLs of any state in the country in regard to the way legal aid is being undermined in that state by the various limits. The Courier-Mail of 4 May certainly hit home on that issue. In Queensland, they are saying there will be a tougher merits test and an arbitrary lump sum various stage limit on veterans cases which will come into effect this month.As the minister very correctly pointed out, whilst the New South Wales Labor government had the most superior legal aid assistance to veterans in this country—and that is a very important point he has compelled me to make—the downturn in regard to legal aid around the country for veterans is very pronounced. In Victoria, they also introduced lump sum limits and tighter merit tests last year. For younger veterans with multiple series of medical complaints, the number of medical reports they can receive assistance for has also been limited. That is a very obvious concern to veterans.On the question of veterans and their ability to launch cases, in last year's budget there was a reference to the government's proposal for panel diagnosis of Vietnam veterans. In this year's budget papers, there is a bit of a question mark over what is going on, because last year there were estimated savings to bring in this proposal. Like most of the interest groups, which are the Vietnam veterans associations, I was under the impression that this attempt to doctor shop on behalf of the department—that is, to run around town until you got a doctor who was basically in line with what the department wanted—had been abandoned. It seemed to have disappeared into the ether.In these budget papers, there is no indication of a reversal of that. If there were to be savings last year and the idea had been abandoned and basically put further back, one would have thought it would have had to come into consideration in the estimates in this budget, but there is no mention of it. There is a figure in there which is roughly the same as what they were going to save last year for this proposal, so it seems they are going ahead with this system or a variation of it. It seems that despite assurances and winks and nods to service organisations in this field that they were not going to proceed, all the indications are that panel diagnosis or a variation of such, which is aimed in the end to save the government money, is going ahead. So that is a matter that does cause us concern.11:43:004727Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—Despite the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) saying that I have not darkened his door since he has been the minister, I ought to say that I have had cooperation from his office, staff and advisers—which I appreciate—as I have had from the department. So I regret that he took the opportunity to make the remarks that he did, so as to in some way cast aspersions on my credibility and my commitment to veterans causes. Saying that I had not grovelled around to his office since the coalition has been in government was an insulting remark and, in insulting me, I think he insulted a number of others as well. I did not think it was necessary to take up the minister's personal time. In fact, I am not sure that he would have been able to tell me anything that I did not already know.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—In fact you might have been able to teach him.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I am not saying whether that is the case or not. The fact is that I was able to get plenty of help and I am still able to get plenty of help without seeing the minister personally. I took that as a serious reflection on my integrity and my commitment to this cause.I do not want to make veterans in this place a political football. Although I have frequently spoken about veterans issues in this place, I have not done so on the basis of attempting to make them some sort of political football. I do, nevertheless, feel free to say on behalf of the veterans community that they do get a bit tired of platitudes. It is all right for successive governments to get up and say, `We're doing great things for veterans. Look at `Their Service—Our Heritage'. That is a great idea.' Some of the things in that program are worth while, but I was concerned at the time it was done that it was some sort of an attempt—and I am prepared to accept that it was not—to build up the momentum that the previous government had quite correctly built with Australia Remembers.I said in my contribution last week that Australia Remembers was a great program. It stood alone; it was appropriate. I was concerned when we went with `Their Service—Our Heritage' that it was something of an attempt to carry on the momentum. Nevertheless, I accept that, within that program, there are some very worthwhile initiatives.In my new capacity as the Leader of the Christian Democratic Party in this place, I want to say what I said last week: I will be uncompromisingly in here to speak for veterans. Perhaps I was not able to do that in the past as a member of a political party that I thought, and still essentially believe, is committed to the veterans community.Like the minister said last week, all of us in this place ought to be, and hopefully are, committed to our veterans, but it needs to be demonstrated in action rather than words. That is why I feel, without having the minister insult me, quite entitled to ask questions and to make statements about matters of concern to veterans. Let me start now with a number of particular matters.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—We are running out of time.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—You might be running out of your time, but I am not running out of mine. We have quite a bit of time to go, and I want to go through this line by line. I have not had the benefit of the departmental briefing, but maybe they can take my questions on notice.I want to take up the matter of the gold card. I think the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) is right. There was an impression given, and it may have been a mistake, that somehow the gold card was going to go to all Second World War veterans. I am not decrying what has been done, but I am saying that I think an impression was given that the gold card was going to go to all Second World War veterans. When the fine print came down, that was not the case. What we have done here is create a class of second-class veterans. They have always been, and they continue to be, a whole group of second-class veterans in respect of not only this matter but also, for instance, the disability pension, which the member for Reid also mentioned.Because they do not get a service pension, their disability pension is treated as income. I have given up on the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) on this matter. I made a speech in 1996 when I said, with some pride, `Look, the government has set up a review into that.' As I said in my speech last week, I wrote to the minister on a number of occasions and said, `What's happening to the review?' and she said, `The review is almost complete.' Finally, the review was completed, and the advice I got then was that it is all too hard and it is going to cost the government a lot of money. Obviously, it has now been put in the too-hard basket. There is a serious element of discrimination here against a group of veterans who have their disability pension treated differently. (Extension of time granted)When is the government going to correct the discrimination against those veterans who are getting disability pensions treated as income vis-a-vis those who have service pensions who are obviously getting them on top of their pensions? What is the government going to do about that? They have carried out the review. They have admitted it is a problem. They have said it is in the too-hard basket. I want to know what is going to happen.In respect of the gold card, there is a case, in my view, for extending the gold card to all Second World War veterans. A number of them have been to see me and have said, `I don't have the so-called qualifying service. I was not posted on active service, but I volunteered. I could have gone anywhere in the world as a volunteer, but I ended up in Townsville, outside the period where qualifying service might have applied,' or `I ended up in Brisbane.' `Nevertheless, I gave up two or three years of my life.' I think they are now entitled to ask whether at some point they will get the gold card.I also raise the issue of the Korean veterans, and I think the member for Reid mentioned that matter. A large number of them are over 70 years old. They actually saw active service in Korea. Is the government at some stage going to contemplate extending the gold card to them? I think there are even some Vietnam veterans—not the ones in this room because they are too young—who are in their seventies, probably not a large number, who would also be entitled to ask the same question about whether the government is contemplating giving the gold card to them.I was going to raise the question of legal aid because it obviously is a matter of great concern to veterans at the moment. The fact is that their rights to pursue their entitlements to the ultimate extent are being taken away from them. They cannot do it, obviously, if they do not have legal aid, yet in Queensland, as the member for Reid quite correctly says, there is a serious problem about access to legal aid.Finally, I wanted to raise the question of the Vietnam veterans morbidity study. I asked a question of the minister about this in the parliament the other day. I did a naughty thing and actually told the minister's office that I was going to ask him the question.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—It was very evident, too.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—It was evident because he happened to have the report in there with him. Despite all of that, he did not answer my question. I thought, next time I tell him I am going to ask him a question, I had better give him the question, not just tell him I am going to ask him a question. I said to the minister's office, `I'm going to ask the minister a question about the Vietnam veterans morbidity study.' The actual question I asked him was: if the results are validated, what action is the government going to take, particularly having regard to the children of veterans—and one of the key concerns that came out of this report is that it is actually the children of veterans who are suffering from a large range of illnesses and effects from their fathers' service.I want to know why there is nothing in the budget. There was a program floating around, the name of which escapes me now, that the Vietnam veterans thought was for that purpose— to provide some advance funding—because, hopefully, the findings in that report will be validated quickly. I assume it is a priority for that to be completed. So I want the minister to tell us that if the results are validated the government will act in the interests of the children and families. The veterans are more or less taken care of within the existing system, but the real concern is with the children.I pointed out to the minister in my question that in the United States there was a precedent with the recognition that spina bifida in the children of Vietnam veterans was caused by their fathers' war service. There was an acceptance by the United States government. The minister is shaking his head. He can answer the question because I think the United States government has set a precedent.I apologise to the minister if I have overstated it. But I was offended by the remarks I heard him say in respect of my contribution last week because I think he did attempt to patronise me and I will not be patronised in this area. That speech was in the context of a bill to do with war widows. My mother is a war widow. To put aside my own involvement in this, I had a deep emotional commitment to that issue, as I do to veterans' affairs, and I will not hesitate to stand in this place and speak strongly on behalf of veterans.11:54:004730Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—We have had a range of comments from the opposition on this, the anniversary of the Battle of Midway back in 1942 and also the 201st anniversary of the first arrival of merino sheep in Australia, so it is a very important day. I had hoped that we would see some members on the other side of the House wearing their wool today in support of our Australian wool industry.I certainly want to answer some of the questions raised by those on the other side of the House. I say to the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) I do acknowledge that he is a Vietnam veteran himself. I acknowledged that in the parliament last week, I acknowledge it here again today, and I acknowledge his service to our nation. I want to say, as he said today—it is a line I have used since becoming minister—that veterans are not a political football. His comment today suggests that he is using that same line. I welcome that and I think every member of this parliament should remember that when they make comments in relation to our veterans and war widows.I will comment on some of the questions raised. Firstly, I will deal with the issue of a briefing. I understand that the member for McPherson requested a briefing on Monday. Today is Wednesday. Obviously, in a ministerial office, with a full diary every day from early in the morning until late in the evening, it is not always possible to respond immediately. The same would apply to the department. But you are welcome to a briefing and there is no need to write. The shadow minister and I work extremely well on issues in relation to veterans because I try to make sure that the shadow minister—and anyone else in this parliament who wants information in relation to programs—has access to that information.In relation to the budget, the member for McPherson suggested that we had cut funding—and that is what I took offence at last week. He suggests today that they are programs. There is an increase of $500 million this year. I will run through some of those issues. There is $96 million in the forward estimates for the coming 12 months for the gold card; for the direct purchase of health care for veterans, there is an increase of $150 million in the forward estimates for the coming financial year.For the Australian War Memorial, there is an extra $2 million in the forward estimates to make sure that they can maintain an adequate base in their funding for the maintenance of the Australian War Memorial. That is a real commitment that we have given. In our first budget, we gave something like $7 million for the much needed restoration of our great national treasure, the Australian War Memorial, and our government has made a commitment that there will be no entry fees—which were being considered by the past administration—to go to see our Australian War Memorial, and we have committed extra funds there.There is also the extension of $194 million in the current 12 months forward estimates for the growth that is expected in the cost of health care for our veterans. So the $500 million is for the next 12 months increase, based on just those four or five programs. Of course, that was reflected in the forward estimates.You also suggested in relation to the War Memorial that there have been some reductions. Can I explain for the benefit of the member that there are one-off appropriations—for instance, for the women's service memorial, $70,000 in 1997-98. It is not going to appear in 1998-99 because the money has been drawn down for that memorial. For the merchant navy memorial, there is $100,000 in 1997-98 which is not going to appear again this year. So sometimes programs like that are specific programs that are not ongoing. With those two memorials, I think you should understand that once the memorial is constructed or the money drawn down, there is no need to go back and do it again; it is a one-off.I touch on the issue of the gold card. There seems to be some confusion relating to what the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said. I have got the Prime Minister's press release here. (Extension of time granted) If you have got any doubt in your mind, you should always read the press release. Sometimes the media might not give the full context. We all know in this place that the media sometimes can cut short someone's response, whether it is a voice or whether it is even a press release. I will read the first paragraph:All World War II veterans who served in the Australian Armed Forces and faced danger from hostile forces during that conflict will now qualify for comprehensive health care under an extension of the Gold Card benefits, worth $508 million.That is a net figure of $508 million. So that should answer that question. I hope it is answered once and for all. That is quite clear. The Prime Minister did not mislead anyone. I think members should look at that.I want to further touch on the issue of the gold card and any further extension. I am interested in any further extension. I am not quite sure whether the opposition is committing to an extension to other areas of service. Obviously, it is an issue that would be a priority for ex-service organisations. I am interested in whether the shadow minister is suggesting this as their promise. They had 13 years in government and we await more than your seven dot points that came out of Hobart in relation to your policy for the veteran community.The member for McPherson raised the issue of the disability pension and the eligibility for service pension and how it is counted as income by the Department of Social Security. There is a very comprehensive review being done by government right now.FT4BRADFORDMr Bradford—It is completed.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—It is not completed.FT4BRADFORDMr Bradford—You got it wrong again.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I told you he was slow on his feet.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—I am giving you the information. It is an interdepartmental review, and it is not finished. You sought the information, and I am giving you the information. In response to the remarks of the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) about being my slow on my feet, I think his patronising comments never change, and I guess he never learns.Obviously, we are taking the issue seriously. I want the member for McPherson to be aware that a service pension is all about persons who have qualifying service. The whole repatriation system, which is 80 years old this year, was based on those who faced the hostile forces of the enemy. If you move away from that fundamental plank, you diminish the service of all those who have qualifying service. That will say to them, `We are not going to treat you as anything special.' That is what that will do.The member for McPherson, who is a returned serviceman himself, I think understands that the repatriation system was built around those principles. I have a father who also served, but he did not serve outside of Australia. I also have a younger brother, who was conscripted in the Vietnam conflict. So do not come to me and say that I might not know anything about this issue.FT4BRADFORDMr Bradford—I didn't say that.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—You inferred it. I take the issue very seriously. In relation to the validation process for Vietnam veterans, it is this government that conducted this health study. It is a self-assessment study. I take the issue of the health of Vietnam veterans and all veterans very seriously. We have already said that the health of Vietnam veterans is a major concern to the government. I will not leave any stone unturned until we get to the bottom of it. We have committed $750,000 to research, particularly in relation to genetic disorders and the effects of agent white, or agent orange, as many people would more commonly know it. So we are taking it very seriously.You asked what action the government will take. The government cannot respond until that validation process is completed. We have gone to great lengths to complete this study. We want the validation. I think it is one of the most significant studies of the health of any serviceman or woman who has served in any war anywhere in the world from any nation. So the rest of the world is watching this validation process and its results. (Extension of time granted)In relation to the US government's decision to extend the benefits of their system of support to children of Vietnam veterans with spina bifida, prior to that decision, their welfare system did not pick up those children, as I understand it. Our system did. Our welfare system will pick up those children with disabilities. So to say that the American government has done something that we have not is incorrect. Our system already picks them up within the welfare system, not under the Veterans' Entitlement Act. That is why we do have a very good welfare system in this country.The American government acknowledged that those children of Vietnam veterans who have spina bifida, and they said that the causal link was not necessarily established, would be supported by a government program. We pick up our spina bifida children here in Australia through our welfare system. Once again, I think that underpins the fact that we in Australia have the best repatriation system in the world. We also have a very good welfare system—amongst the best in the world.What we are trying to do now is get to the bottom of the health related issues, as they may have affected the veterans whom we have already acknowledged. All those conditions that were identified in that study are, in fact, covered under the Veterans' Entitlement Act today. We are seriously looking at and awaiting the final validation process in relation to that health study.FT4BRADFORDMr Bradford—When will that be?YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—We hope—and as I said when I addressed the Vietnam Veterans Association in Darwin a couple of weekends ago—that it will be by the end of this year. It is a process that you cannot rush, because to get it right, to get it validated properly, is the most important thing. That is what we are doing. We will continue to monitor any situation relating to the health of our veterans.I want to touch on the issue of panel diagnosis. I think when I first became minister what I discovered as I travelled around was the fact that many veterans, particularly Vietnam veterans, were not happy with the system as it was at the time in relation to diagnosis of PTSD. The veterans were not happy with the system. Therefore, I was not happy.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I wasn't happy either.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—No-one was happy. They said that there needs to be some change. We needed to get a system that everyone had confidence in. The veterans have to have confidence in the process of diagnosis. What we are dealing with in relation to PTSD is something you cannot see. I often describe it this way: you can go and have a look at a new car, which is all polished up and looks great, but when you lift the bonnet and look at the engine you still cannot see inside the workings of that machine. That is what PTSD is like. It is a psychological disorder. You cannot see it. It is a very difficult assessment, as I think many would acknowledge.Whilst the veterans were not happy and the department was not happy, we have to come up with a system that everyone has confidence in. That is what we are seeking to achieve as part of the process of getting a regime in place that, importantly, our veterans will have confidence in.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—No. I think it is about getting confidence in the system. The department is working with the Vietnam veterans organisations. It is a partnership arrangement. That is very important. Everyone at the end of the day, from the person at the front door of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, in the main office, in one of the state offices or working through an agency arrangement, are all committed to our veteran community. I know that in Mildura, in the electorate of the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest), we have recently established a contractual arrangement so that the local council office is the provider. That is working extremely well out there. It is an invaluable service in a rural area. Wherever the department people are, they are committed, as this government is committed, to delivering the best possible health service to those who gave service to this nation of ours of which we are all so proud.Proposed expenditures agreed to.Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth AffairsProposed expenditure, $2,394,960,00012:10:004733Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Before we move into a more comprehensive consideration of these issues, I pose a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) concerning one outstanding issue that was raised in these proceedings last year. I must say I join with him in expressing some concern about a former employee of his, a Mr Oldfield. During those proceedings in the Main Committee, the parliamentary secretary undertook to conduct a full, comprehensive and exhaustive investigation as to Mr Oldfield's activities whilst in his employ as a parliamentary secretary. A serious issue was then raised by the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not Mr Oldfield, whilst in the employ of the parliamentary secretary, had conducted himself in a bona fide way with respect to accountability on the use of his travel entitlements, the use of his time and other facilities such as mobile telephones, telecards, et cetera. I cannot find, since that undertaking was given by the parliamentary secretary, a full and proper report back to the parliament, nor do I find any reference to it in the department's papers, because perhaps in the overall consideration of these issues, expenditure wise, it might be a minuscule issue. But I think the parliamentary secretary had a right to express his concerns in the Main Committee when these matters were last considered. Before moving on to other issues, I pose that question at the outset, so as to enable the parliamentary secretary to get that issue off the agenda. Then we can move on to new issues.12:12:004734Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I thank the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) for raising that matter. Yes, I am conscious of the discussion we had last year on this self-same subject. I am also conscious of the way I felt at the time, and still feel, about the treachery of my former staff member.As I indicated to the Main Committee then, I believed that my former staff member had made inappropriate phone calls using departmental equipment and that he had made trips as a governmental staffer that were completely and utterly inappropriate. I referred those matters to the departmental secretary for departmental investigation.As a result of those investigations, I believe that some money—I seem to recollect from memory that it was some hundreds of dollars—was repaid by Mr Oldfield for phone calls which he agreed were not within the entitlement. The matter was then referred to the police for further investigation. I believe that that police investigation went on for quite a few months. I received advice probably about a month ago that the police had declined to take the matter further. That is where things are. I do not know that there is much more that really can be done except for me to put on the record yet again that I believe that former staffer of mine behaved contemptibly. I only hope for the sake of the people of Australia that he is behaving better in his current employ.12:14:004734Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Following on from the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott), as I understand it, Mr Oldfield, formerly an employee of the parliamentary secretary, is now in the employ of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). He mentioned the recovery of moneys owed to the department with respect to telephone accounts. Was there any full and proper investigation with respect to his time and also the use of travel entitlements? Could he also enlighten the Australian public as to why the Federal Police, unlike what is the case with members on both sides of the House who are currently being pursued through the courts, chose not to prosecute one Mr Oldfield, an employee of Ms Pauline Hanson, the member for Oxley.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Before I call the parliamentary secretary, I understand that members' staff are paid out of the appropriation of the Department of Finance and Administration.12:15:004735Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I do not like to darken these proceedings by mentioning him by name, but Mr Oldfield was on my ministerial staff entitlement. I am not sure precisely what that means in terms of where his salary comes from, but certainly travel and other entitlements were provided for out of the departmental budget. The departmental investigation was into his use of departmental entitlements and, as I said, he repaid some hundreds of dollars.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Did it include travel?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Yes, it included travel. From memory, he repaid some hundreds of dollars relating to inappropriate, out-of-entitlement phone calls. There were no repayments for travel because he claimed, with some justification, that he had also done legitimate business—whatever else he might have done—on these trips. At that point the department referred the matter on to the police. The police, after what was certainly a lengthy and I can only assume a thorough investigation, decided that they could not take the matter further. I understand the concerns of the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson). Certainly in the weeks and months following my former staffer's defection, I was absolutely appalled, flabbergasted and, I have to say, ashamed of the sorts of things which it turned out he had been doing. I took the only appropriate action under the circumstances.The member for Batman asked about my former staffer's time. What he does in his own spare time outside of hours, as it were, is really his own business. Obviously there is an expectation that out of a sense of fitness—not to mention loyalty—that staff of politicians will act in ways which are consistent with the loyalties and allegiances of their employer, and plainly in this case my former staffer did not do that.As the member for Batman says, my former staffer is now in the employ of the member for Oxley and has, I believe, been on her staff ever since he left me. Certainly he was acting informally as an adviser to her for some months before leaving me. I was never aware of that. As I said, I regard it as contemptible behaviour on his part. But he is now, in his capacity as an assistant to or a staff member of the member of Oxley, apparently acting as the One Nation campaign director in Queensland. How that squares with his employment and his payment by the Commonwealth is a very interesting question but beyond the scope of these estimates.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! I think we should leave this particular aspect of this topic because, as I understand it, staff salary, travel and entitlements, et cetera come out of the Department of Finance and Administration and we have already earlier today dealt with the estimates for that department. If the honourable member for Batman or anyone else wishes to pursue this issue, they should exercise other avenues. I think we should now move on to a more detailed examination of the expenditure proposed for the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.12:19:004735Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I understand your concerns and your suggestion, but there is one final issue that does not go to the use of entitlements. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) referred to the fact that he is now convinced that, whilst this person was in his employ, he was secretly carrying out work for another political party.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I think you have half ruled on it, but I am sitting here wondering what possible relevance this has to do with the budget appropriation that we are currently dealing with. Can you instruct the member to please get on with it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thought I had done that.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Enforce it, if you like, but let us be relevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the member for Batman wishes to raise this issue, he has to somehow relate it to the expenditure for the department that we are considering. If he is just going to ask about the salary and so forth of a former employee, that should have been dealt with earlier today under the Department of Finance and Administration. Like him, I am bound by the standing orders and I have ruled that we should now move on. There are other avenues available in the parliament if he wishes to raise these issues. But the member must relate it to the expenditure for the department of employment, otherwise it will be out of order.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—The issue relates to carrying out the duties for and on behalf of the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary, if anything, made a suggestion that coat-hanger activities were conducted by a member of his staff on the basis of perhaps justifying movements around Australia to carry out activities for other people. Is it his view personally that, when he examined the justification for some of that travel, the actual work carried out on behalf of the parliamentary secretary and the department itself was, if anything, very minor and merely a means to justify other activities? I suggest that it might have been.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I must rule that we as a committee are not interested in personal views. If the honourable member for Batman wishes to obtain a personal view from the parliamentary secretary, he should either put it in writing or maybe put it on the Notice Paper . But, as I have said on three occasions, I think we have canvassed this issue fairly thoroughly—in fact, maybe too thoroughly—bearing in mind that the matter of staff salary, travel and other entitlements is a matter for the Department of Finance and Administration which we have already dealt with earlier today.What we are dealing with now is the proposed expenditure for the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Regardless of what the parliamentary secretary's personal view on present, former or prospective staff may or may not be, I hardly think it is relevant to this expenditure. We should move on now with the consideration of the proposed expenditure for the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The honourable member for Batman is making my job quite difficult this morning. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Because you are so highly respected, Mr Deputy Speaker and a very close personal friend of mine who, I hope, is going to vote for me in the future, I will now move on to some other issues. I understand that the question I have raised will be responded to by the parliamentary secretary because he would not want it hanging over his activities as parliamentary secretary. This issue does not just relate to budgetary expenditure; it also relates to the problems of unemployment and some of the changes in government policy that were announced not just in this budget but in previous budgets and partly implemented in this budget.At the outset, I want to say that I think the budgetary process with respect to the unemployed has become a painful and unnecessary journey to nowhere. When considering this department in detail, you have to consider the overall problem of unemployment and, in that context, I go to the budget projections for unemployment.The real problem for the budget process is that it is going nowhere when it comes to doing something about the jobless. Even though the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) might regard parts of the budget as being heroic growth assumptions, my reading of the budget papers leads me to believe that we are still talking about a stubbornly difficult unemployment rate of eight per cent over the next 12 months. On the basis of the budget projections, that effectively means that unemployment is going to increase during that 12 months from the current level of 7.9 per cent.I would also like to say that, despite the government's endeavours to prompt and change the view of the department, the department still said that, based on the performance of the previous Labor government, we were on target to achieve an unemployment rate of five per cent by the turn of the century. If Labor had remained in government—and had continued to grow the whole economy one per cent faster and jobs nearly three times faster than the coalition—unemployment would now be down to six per cent, with 150,000 more Australians back at work.I raise that in the context of the budget predictions. When you compare them with the ABS figures on unemployment, it shows that the participation rate has now fallen by over half a per cent since this government was elected. I therefore put to the minister that, if this government had the participation rate that we had at the time of the last election in March 1996, we not only would not have an unemployment rate of 7.9 per cent today based on the last monthly figures; we would have an unemployment rate in the order of 8.8 per cent. Based on the budget projections of growth, if we had the same participation rate, we would be potentially looking at a projected unemployment rate of way over nine per cent today.That is very important when considering these budget processes, because even Dr Hewson, a former close friend of the parliamentary secretary, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), has suggested there are major problems with the budget projections going to the level of economic growth, the potential impact of the Asian crisis on the Australian economy and the fallout from the jobs front. I think we ought to have a proper discussion today about where we are actually going on the unemployment rate and the fact that the participation rate has fallen by over half a per cent. That suggests that, if the government had maintained a sense of hope and confidence in the economy, the unemployment rate today would be in the order of 8.8 per cent. On the basis of the budget projections and using that participation rate, we would be looking in normal circumstances at an unemployment rate of over nine per cent in the next 12 months. That is not denying the fact that, in these budget papers, the government accepts that unemployment is actually going to increase over the next 12 months.We have to be honest with the Australian community. This budget suggests that unemployment is going to increase over the next 12 months. We cannot escape the fact that it would get worse if all of a sudden people said, `We're going to go back into the work force.' I know the government has a strategy of actually forcing people out of the work force. I need only refer in passing to the fact that the government has cut assistance to child care by $800 million—(Time expired)12:27:004737Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I have a few queries in relation to some of the accounts of this department. I notice in the accounts that the running costs are $461.5 million and a reference is made to `other services' of $1.871 billion. Firstly, how much of those running costs is going to pay people in the department who are regarded as unattached—that is, who do not have a position and who are not engaged in gainful employment—but who are drawing a salary from the Commonwealth? If there are a number of people in that position, and I would be interested in both quantum and numbers, why is this occurring and what can be done in a department such as this to prevent it from occurring? Secondly, what do the `other services' refer to? If I could get an answer on that, I would be obliged.In relation to this portfolio, may I say at the outset that I have a warm personal regard for the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp). On all the occasions I have dealt with him, he has given me prompt attention. He is a diligent worker and he is a most intelligent individual. I do, however, draw attention to a number of concerns I have in relation to the operation of the new employment job market scheme.In particular, many complaints are coming through from, shall I say, people in the underemployed category and people who are not on benefits generally—those sorts of people—who are striving to get employment, who are having absolutely no success in doing so and who are being shunted between job placement providers. It is the most depressing thing. Mr Irving, a constituent of mine, came to see me last Saturday with his wife, and he bitterly complained of the system.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—So you work on Saturday?SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Yes, I work Saturday and Sunday—no double time either. The fact of the matter is that he came to see me most bitterly disappointed with the system. He said that last week was one of the most depressing in his two years of looking for work. He went to a number of places to register. He was told that he was not eligible as he was not on a benefit. He is desperately wanting to get a job. While he is 80 per cent through a design and drafting engineering qualification, unfortunately, he is in that over-45 age group. I could see nothing but genuineness etched all over his face as someone who is desperately trying to get work but who is finding the system basically against him.The interest of the providers diminishes immediately when he cannot quote a number or he cannot say that he is registered as unemployed. Basically, out of a number of providers he went to see, only one showed a smidgen of interest in trying to place him somewhere. So the frustration and the disappointment were, as I say, etched all over his face. That is one person, but that one really sticks in my mind amongst many others who have told me similar stories. We must look at the situation that has occurred that is denying people these particular benefits.Also I mention—and I would like to develop this further—that employers were used to a situation with the old CES where they were able to get assistance in finding employees, but one very irate employer rang me up a few weeks ago to tell me that he was going to be charged upwards of $250. I approached the minister's office about this. I did not believe that was true but, to my horror, I was told that it was. We were never told that in the party room, I can assure you. (Time expired)12:32:004738Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I might begin by just picking up on the comments of the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) with respect to the ability of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp). There is no doubt that this is a minister with a great mind, a very intelligent man. But the problem is that he is also a man absolutely ideologically driven. Day after day in question time he stands at that dispatch box giving new meaning to the phrase `lies, damned lies and statistics'. He consistently fiddles with the figures to give a false impression about the impact of his employment policies and the impact of his educational policies on the wider community.He is now responsible for this part of the budget which effectively runs up the white flag on unemployment. This was the minister who, when in opposition, travelled the width and breadth of this country bleating about the rates of unemployment in this country, in particular bleating about rates of youth unemployment, yet he is now prepared to accept that, in 12 months time, unemployment in this country will be no better than it is today—indeed, no better than what it was when he came to office. In particular, he is prepared to concede that youth unemployment will stay higher than it was before he came to office.I want to turn to the impact that has on my electorate. As you know, the unemployment rate in the Hunter region is hovering still well above 10 per cent. In my own home town of Cessnock, it is around 12 per cent. Cessnock is a community founded on coal. The township and the more than 20 villages that surround the town were founded on the coal that was beneath the surface. We once had almost 30 coalmines in the Cessnock LGA, now we have but one, which is about to close. We used to have a textile and clothing industry. It is no longer with us. Our kids used to travel to Newcastle to manufacturing firms like BHP, Comsteel and Tubemakers for their apprenticeships, but obviously those opportunities are now very limited. The LGA's one great hope, the tourism sector, driven by the local wine industry, now faces new challenges due to the Asian economic crisis.What is this government's response to all that? It is not an industry assistance package or a labour market adjustment package. I might say too, that while those coalmines are now closed in the immediate area of Cessnock, something like 20 per cent of the work force still works in the coalmining industry. Those men and some women travel down to the lake, but mainly they travel to the Upper Hunter to work in large open cut coalmines like Hunter Valley No. 1 and Mount Thorley—coalmines that have been in the news of late due to Rio Tinto's attack on working conditions within those mines.Coalmining remains a significant employer, and yet there is a range of studies that show that, due to the depressed price of coal, at least another 1,000 jobs will go in the industry in the Upper Hunter over the next 12 months—a further impact on the Cessnock local government area. I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on 16 December last year asking him to address this problem, putting forward a significant case for an economic adjustment package in the local area of Cessnock. What was his response? None at all. Not even an acknowledgment of my letter, not even an acknowledgment from the Prime Minister of my representation with respect to the dire economic situation in Cessnock. What has been their response to the unemployment situation in Cessnock? No thought of assistance in terms of economic recovery, none at all.There was a bit of assistance for Newcastle when BHP announced the closure of the steel industry. But an Upper Hunter BEC study shows that the downturn in the coal industry in the Upper Hunter in comparative terms will have a greater impact on that community and the communities which rely upon it than, indeed, the BHP steelwork's closure will have on Newcastle and its surrounds. I do not see the Prime Minister coming to the Cessnock local government area or, indeed, the Upper Hunter. I know it took him a long time to come to Newcastle. (Extension of time granted) I will keep pushing to ensure that the Prime Minister comes to Cessnock, and so he should.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are currently discussing a question about appropriations for employment, education, training and youth affairs. I know there is wide scope in a debate on appropriations. But the member is talking specifically about the situation in his electorate. I am wondering what possible relationship there is with the appropriation we are considering. I would like him to be a little more consistent with the issue under discussion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams)—Order! The appropriation expenditure is to do with Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I think the honourable member is dealing with that area.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—It hurts when I expose the Prime Minister's incompetence, and it hurts when I expose the Prime Minister's lack of care and concern for Labor electorates, basically—for those working Australians who live in relatively safe Labor electorates. But I thank the honourable member for his contribution because I am about to come to that very point.I will speak about the one thing that the Prime Minister has done in the Cessnock LGA; that is, he has imposed significant changes in employment services. Cessnock used to have a Commonwealth Employment Service that once upon a time employed about 20 people—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—It was a very good one.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—When it closed, it was employing 10 people—and it was a very good service, as the honourable member interjects. Cessnock also had a great community infrastructure. It comprised organisations like Northumberland Network, the Samaritans Foundation, the skillshare that was based in Kurri Kurri, for example—all very good organisations with a great track record which had for years provided very good employment services for the unemployed in Cessnock.But what do we have now as a result of the new Job Network? We have an office of Employment National with five staff, and nothing else—no contracts for Northumberland Network, no contracts for the Samaritans and, of course, Kurri Kurri skillshare cannot be given contracts because it went out the window earlier with one of the other ideologically driven approaches; and that is it. We were to have two sites in Cessnock: we were to have Employment National doing both FLEX 1 and FLEX 3 services; we were also supposed to have Hospitality Horizons providing FLEX 1 services only. Of course, as we know, due to the farcical situation, Hospitality Horizons has fallen over, leaving Cessnock with one site only.Let us look at Maitland, next door in the government held marginal seat of Paterson: six sites—and I thank the parliamentary secretary for his smile, which just says it all.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He's embarrassed.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—As the honourable member for Batman interjects, he is embarrassed by this situation. There are six sites in Maitland, where the unemployment rate is lower than in Cessnock; and one in Cessnock, where the unemployment rate is in excess of 12 per cent. There are eight service providers in Maitland with its six sites. The government will argue that some of those service providers based in Maitland have contracts to provide services in Cessnock. But what a farce that is. Mission Australia have just rented an office from the Samaritans Foundation for one day a week; that will be that organisation's contribution. I support Mission Australia; I hope that they will do a great job, and I will do all I can to assist them because we need some help.The parliamentary secretary will say, `These allocations of contracts have all been done independently, and all prudential scrutiny has been exercised.' But how can anyone possibly explain how Maitland, with a lower unemployment rate than Cessnock, could possibly have six sites compared with Cessnock's one or two, as was intended? There is just no logic in that at all.Today, during this debate, I challenge the parliamentary secretary to explain to me and my constituents, including the almost 4,000 people who are unemployed in the Cessnock LGA, why it is that now they have two choices: to line up at the office of National Employment, with five staff down from the 10 which the CES had; or catch a private bus to Maitland or Newcastle at a cost of between $6 and $16.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—And that's before the GST.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Yes, that is before the GST, as the member for Batman says; that bus fare is about to rise. So I challenge the parliamentary secretary today not to give me the general waffle about how many providers and sites there are in the DEETYA region or the area but to explain to me why it is that there is only one site for the almost 4,000 unemployed living in the town of Cessnock.12:43:004741Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—For a discussion of this portfolio's appropriations, one really has to go to the statistics, because Minister Kemp is renowned for the way in which he manipulates figures to do with his portfolio. He is renowned for his ability to be the great propagandist of the government.I want to go to a study, released on Sunday by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, which looked at the new Job Network—the brave new world of employment services. There are a few themes in this paper that was prepared by Dr Paul Pickering of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, one of which has been touched on by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon)—and that is the disproportionate way in which tenders have been allocated throughout Australia.If you look at the local area that I represent and, say, the program now known as jobsearch training, in the dormitory municipalities of Nillumbik, Banyule and Whittlesea, which are in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, we find that no jobsearch training tenders have been let. In fact, for the whole north-east region of Melbourne, there are only five, with four of those in Preston within the seat of Batman. That is just an example of the lack of access that has been provided to certain regions under this new program.I go to the funding and the problem that is isolated in this paper which was released on Sunday. The fact is that there is a gross underfunding of the programs, on the basis of the figures that the minister and the department have released. If we go to the budget papers, for the term of the tenders—that is, from 1 May 1998 to 30 November 1999—and taking intensive assistance, which in the build-up to the letting of the tenders was known as FLEX 3, the department says that there will be 550,000 commencements and the maximum number of 247,500 job seekers at any one time.Dr Pickering did some sums on this in his paper on the basis of the initial payment. He indicated that of the $1.1 billion, which previous papers have indicated would be available for that 18-month period, 89.6 per cent of the intensive assistance budget would be taken up by the initial commencement payments, allowing just over 10 per cent for the larger outcome fees. In response to this, a spokesman for the minister is quoted in today's Age saying that the paper was flawed because it had not taken into account the fact that 100,000 people had transferred from intensive assistance from the old employment market to the Job Network.That statement from the spokesperson on behalf of the minister does not allow for the fact that in Dr Pickering's paper he went on to say that, after doing those calculations indicating that nearly 90 per cent of the budget would be taken up by commencement fees, even allowing for a percentage of roll-over clients, those who are already receiving assistance and who attract smaller commencement fees, and clients who complete their outcome in a subsequent contract period, there is still a big financial hole.If we take 110,000 transitional clients and we spread them proportionately over the three levels under intensive assistance, which have different gradings of commencement fees—FLEX 3.1 has $1,500, FLEX 3.2 has $2,250 or FLEX 3.3 has $3,000—that adds up to $806 million. If we take 100,000 transitional clients at a minimum transfer fee of $1,100, that adds up to a total of $916 million. That is 83.3 per cent of the total budget for intensive assistance, leaving only 16.7 per cent of that budget for the higher outcome fees.How does it work? Yet again, Minister Kemp or Minister Kemp's department is coming up with figures that are put in place to totally confuse, either that or, if we take it on the balance of the evidence before us, it is a great con. Perhaps the great con is that the minister knew that, even though he is ideologically driven, he was putting in place something that just will not work. This is a tragic con because it is a con on the unemployed people of Australia. That is the real thing that sticks in people's craws. (Time expired)12:48:004742Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—In this debate on the appropriation bills dealing with the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, I am going to concentrate very much on youth affairs. There is a sleeper issue out there in the electorate which will bite this government like you would not believe. The reaction from the electorate will be similar to that greeting the futile nursing home changes which panicked the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) so much that his government changed its position at least 14 times and cost a minister her job. I refer to the introduction of the common youth allowance on 1 July 1998.The government thought that it had tucked this measure into the back of a huge budget paper pile that we all get lumbered with and that somehow people would not notice it until it was too late. Well, they have noticed it. The electorate is beginning to stir. They can smell something that is not right with this measure, and they are starting to make their voices heard. My office has already been receiving a steady flow of inquiries from worried, outraged parents.The government is so secretly concerned that it devised a youth allowance media strategy, which said:We can expect more vocal opposition from families after July 1 when families of young unemployed people start to feel the effect of the parental income test. We can expect disaffected families to air their grievances through the media.Has there ever been more of an understatement than this? Families earning as little as $23,500 will be forced to pay as the Howard family government withdraws income support for unemployed children. Young people in families earning over $42,000 will be cut off from any unemployment assistance at all. They will not get 1c. Let us not forget that on top of this those families will also cop a goods and services tax.A mother of a young person in my electorate came into my office last week. She had just discovered the entire devil in the detail in the proposal the Prime Minister had been widely applauded for in this place. Her 18-year-old son will not receive a single cent in income support because this family earns over $42,000. Never mind that this family must also support three other children. Never mind the financial stress and strain of having to pay increased child care, medical and other costs. Never mind any of these things because it is your responsibility to support your own children. This is the family friendly advice the Howard government provides to battling families in the Illawarra.This mother is absolutely ropeable. I understand that she is trying to make an appointment with the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash). I tried to explain to her that it would be very unlikely that the member for Gilmore would see her because she lived in Throsby, but this mother is determined. I do not expect this mother to be to fobbed off by the member for Gilmore. I expect the member for Gilmore to actually meet this mother. I expect her to defend her vote in this place to introduce the common youth allowance.I might say that this is what members of the government parties are increasingly going to have to do. They are going to have to go out there in the community and defend how they have voted on this budget and on a whole range of issues that have so devastated the Australian community. They are going to have to tell the people and justify how they vote. I expect the member for Gilmore to really listen to the plight of an ordinary family and the effect that this measure, which she supported, as she supports everything else, will have on families after 1 July.Labor moved amendments to this legislation in the Senate. We sought to protect young unemployed people, who the Prime Minister promised would have a job, and their families. We moved to keep the age of independence at 18 years of age. This would obviously have meant that young unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 21 would not have been affected by the parental income test. This family friendly Howard government voted against these amendments. The bottom line is that this government is making low and middle income families pay the price for this government's unemployment failure. This is a sleeper issue, but it will awake and on 1 July there will be fireworks. There will be plenty more angry mothers, fathers, sons and daughter who will be seeking retribution, and it will be at the ballot box. I support what the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) has said, and I have heard the member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) also say in the chamber about people who are not registered with various agencies trying to get unemployment benefits. I have had people come into my office and see me about this. I have had people ringing me up about it. It is a really discriminatory move that this government is making. Unless you are registered, you cannot get the benefit. I can provide the parliamentary secretary of the minister with a whole range of things. I heard a minister in here earlier today say that no-one was going to have to pay a fee. That is certainly not right. Unless you are registered, you are not going to get the services that are being provided. It is utterly outrageous and it has to be changed.12:53:004743Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Some 50 years ago George Orwell wrote that famous essay about politics and the English language. I am certain that he had people like the current member for Goldstein, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) in mind when he wrote it. A couple of George Orwell's famous quotes were, in relation to Stalinist Russia, about Stalin referring to the elimination of undesirable elements. We all knew what that meant. The British also referred to the pacification of India, and we knew what that meant too. If you examine the minister's second reading speeches, you find example after example of where he states that less is in fact more. I would like to challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) to get up in a moment and explain an item on page 130 of Budget Paper No. 4. Under section 2, assistance to school education, there is an item 02, entitled `School to work—initiatives to promote effective and reliable pathways from schooling to employment.' I was under the impression, from the propaganda that went out about the budget, that this was actually built upon and expanded. According to me, and maybe the parliamentary secretary can correct me if I am wrong, it looks as though there is about a 25 per cent reduction in school to work initiatives in this country. I quote the Canadian writer, David Pecaut, who, in the 1997 edition of Policy Options said:It has become an economic fact of life that the strongest companies and the strongest nations are those with the strongest work forces. The high skilled, high wage economies that are thriving today can confidently look forward to continued prosperity.He went on to write about the total system breakdown in Canada; about the deterioration of the school to work transition for young adults. I suspect he could write exactly the same thing for this country.When young people in secondary schools seek advice in further careers or further training, what are they usually confronted with? There are perhaps 1,200 students in a secondary school and one career adviser—one for 1,200. That is a totally impossible expectation to try to meet. How is that teacher often selected? In fact, the majority are selected by what is called a famous short straw method. In other words, you all put your hand in and hope to God you do not get it—and I am wondering if the short straw becomes the career adviser. Of course that teacher has a whole range of other duties as well as career guidance. The expectation is totally ridiculous. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me why in 1998-99, when we and the government have made such a big deal, and I think rightfully, of school to work transition and you have cut it not by five per cent or two per cent but by 25 per cent. Is this a recognition of what is common in all English speaking countries with right-of-centre governments that there is no attention paid to the resources for five-year-olds to 15-year-olds in particular. I know that most responsibility for schools is in fact a state responsibility, but there is a leadership angle at a federal level. That leadership at a federal level has gone totally missing. Whether you refer to school to work or enrolment benchmark adjustment, it does not matter. When it comes to the very foundations of education we find that this government and this minister have gone missing. They talk about literacy and numeracy initiatives—big deal! I was the one who made that reference in this parliament in 1988. In fact, I could not even get my own side to be interested until 1990 when Mary Crawford, the then member for Forde, was chairing the literacy challenge. So it is a recent phenomenon.For a long time in this country we have taken children at the foundation level of education—their training or further education—far too lightly. At a university level we are second to the United States in expenditure. That is a good thing. And we are doing some very positive things in TAFE in terms of training, but we have forgotten about the real levels of education. When a 16-year-old child fronts up with a literacy and a numeracy problem it is because he was a six-year-old child with the same problem that no-one addressed.12:58:004744Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—When I spoke earlier I mentioned the cost to employers of using Employment National when previously there was no cost involved. I was contacted in the last few weeks by a produce business employer in my electorate who raised this matter with me in a state of great agitation, and I do not blame him. He had used the old CES for a lot of years and had found a number of good employees through that system without charge. He was then met with the rather stark announcement that he was going to have to pay $250 or more for using a service which once was free. It is no good saying that small business is the engine room of society, that small business is doing well now that interest rates are down, and that small business is now coming out of the trough when, at the same time, we are doing this to small business. This is attacking something that should not be attacked: the capacity of small business to employ people. Small businesses are living on the edge in terms of margins, yet this particular fee of $250—and upwards—has now been attached to anyone in business who goes to Employment National. I was horrified to hear that that was the case; I did not know about it. We were not told about it.I approached the office of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) about this matter and was told yes, that is the case. I was told, I think in no uncertain terms, that we are now moving to a more rationalist approach to these things—which is code for small business having yet another impost on it, and it is a disincentive to employ people. We are trying to get more people into work, yet here is a cost to a small business in my electorate that produces the response I mentioned. Frankly, I do not blame the small business person concerned for delivering it to me and saying, `What the hell is the government doing about it?'Can we not look at this again? I know that there is an alternative and that small business people can put the information into a computer at Centrelink and that that is free—but that is just not good enough. A service that has been there for so long and that has been very useful to employers and small businesses has now been taken away and sacrificed at the feet of economic rationalism. The other point I want to raise is the question of the outlays for labour and employment issues of $2.771 billion. I have not as yet discovered a breakdown for what part of that figure will be utilised for the job market program. I would like to get some sort of breakdown—in particular localising it to my electorate—which would be useful for understanding just what is being spent.After all, we are spending a lot of money on trying to get people placed into fewer and fewer jobs. Surely there comes a point in time when we should be saying, `Is that money not better spent on some major capital works program? Is it not better to be directing that money to putting people into real jobs rather than finding fewer and fewer jobs and spending an awful lot of money trying to do that?' I know there is the payment when you get the people placed et cetera, but certainly built into all of that is a cost that one could arguably say is dead money. I would ask that that also be looked at in the context of examining philosophically what we are trying to do—we are trying to get more people into employment ultimately, are we not? I would ask that some consideration be given to reviewing the cost to employers using Employment National and also to re-examining the cost of the new job market program.13:03:004745Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I have a couple of comments to make today regarding aspects of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and, in particular, on an issue that relates to my local area. It concerns a local organisation by the name of the Springvale Indochinese Mutual Assistance Association, or SICMAA, which operates out of Springvale and covers part of my electorate and also parts of the electorates of the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) and the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans). It is a very valuable organisation in the local area in terms of providing assistance to people of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Chinese backgrounds in particular because the area has a very high number of migrants from those countries. SICMAA recently applied for funding under the community support program. I will read from an article on that issue in one of the local papers, the Dandenong Journal . The article headed `Funding refused for job scheme' reads:The co-ordinator of the Springvale Indo-chinese Mutual Assistance Association (SICMAA) has launched a stinging attack on the Federal Government and its method of allocating funds.Mr Phong Nguyen made the criticisms after his organisation had been denied money for an employment program.SICMAA's Community Support Program proposal had been submitted to the Department of Employment, Education and Training.The association has a smaller scale but successful program in place.Mr Nguyen said that tender assessments seemed to favour the larger, mainstream organisations over smaller groups such as SICMAA."Once again it's a matter of the funds going to the mainstream rather than the organisations who deal with the specific ethnic groups," he said."I mean we all know the astronomical unemployment rate in the Indo-chinese community so why not fund a program that can deal directly with the problem."While he applauded much of the work done by larger organisations such as the Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau and the Salvation Army, Mr Nguyen said that SICMAA was often better placed to help its constituents."We speak the language and understand the culture which has its obvious advantages," he said."It's decisions like this which show that this Government is abandoning multiculturalism."The Community Support Program proposal involved the provision of services not normally included in an employment scheme—such as family and psychiatric counselling as well as rent assistance—to give participants the best possible chance of finding employment.Mr Nguyen said the amount requested by SICMAA was modest and open to negotiation.Despite requests, the Journal had not received comment from the Department of Employment, Education and Training at the time of going to press.That is an article from a couple of weeks ago. I have not had an update on this particular issue at this time. But it does show a wider question on this government's priorities when it comes to employment assistance.We know that we have seen massive cuts to labour market programs and we have seen the focus of those programs alter. The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) basically uses the line that `these programs were not about jobs, they were mickey mouse programs—programs that were in existence under the previous government—and that what we have got now is something which is much more practically related.' There are a couple of practical points that can be related to what has actually occurred. Practically what has occurred is a major gutting of funding to provide assistance to people who are unemployed. When you look at the question of the size of that cut, you have to ask, `How can you possibly do as much as was done with so little?' On the question of the nature of the practical results from providing assistance to the unemployed, it misunderstands and it misses the entire point around the question of providing practical assistance. It goes beyond the question of merely pointing people in directions. It basically misunderstands the whole point about the different levels of disadvantage of people who are unemployed. It does not take into account a range of other issues around the question of the programs that were in existence and the nature of what they were designed to deal with. It misses the entire point that when you look at the question of the success rates—and I use that term loosely—of some of these programs they were aimed at people with varying levels of disadvantage and, in the circumstances of a complex employment market and a complex labour base, you have to take those issues into account.It is true that, in funding the Job Network, aspects of those issues are being picked up but nowhere near enough to deal with the real issues. The point is that, if you handle unemployment in a simplistic way, as this minister does, and if you endeavour to simplistically distort statistics in order to make some cheap political points, as this minister has done, it will lead to a situation where you misunderstand the nature of the problems you are dealing with. If you misunderstand the nature of the problem you are dealing with, then you will not deal with it. That has been the issue with this government in terms of employment, in terms of providing jobs and in terms of dealing with people who are unemployed. The government is missing the point and it has missed the point entirely on this issue. This issue from my local area shows that point graphically.13:08:004747Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I would like to continue on the issues that I raised at the outset—that is, that I believe the country deserves better on the employment front and that the real problem with this budget strategy is that it will not generate jobs. I also referred to the fact that you cannot separate the issue of employment from other portfolio responsibilities—the impact, for example, on the fall in the participation rate of the cruel cuts to the child-care system of over $800 million since the government was elected.I was, in essence, leading to the fact that the budget also confirms that, in the two years since the government was elected, nearly 800,000 unemployed Australians have seen their job prospects deteriorate alarmingly. The budget strategy also confirms that the $148 million cut in employment services has affected their capacity to get back to work and it is going to make it worse for those workers and their families. They face a fairly daunting situation at the moment and that is because of the projections and the performance of the government as reflected in the budget papers.Firstly, the budget papers clearly show that the unemployment rate has scarcely fallen in the 26 months since this government was elected. Secondly, we can all recall the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard) at the National Press Club just before the last election in March 1996, when he tried to stand tall by saying, `I've got a plan. I'm going to be a very disappointed man if I don't achieve something on the youth unemployment rate.' This budget confirms that the youth unemployment rate has in actual fact risen. He tried to set out in detail that concept and the image that he has a plan to do something about youth unemployment. Despite all the changes to the youth allowance, the so-called work for the dole and the way forward for young people, we are talking about a rise in youth unemployment, which was confirmed in the budget papers, to 29.2 per cent since March 1996.I also referred to the fact that I think it is fairly important that you look at the issue of jobs growth in the budget papers and compare the current figures with what was achieved in the last 26 months of Labor in government. This budget confirms that total jobs growth has been around one-third of the rate of the Labor government in its last two years in office.I now go to the issue of full-time jobs. I appreciate the importance of part-time jobs but the government, in more recent months, has got a lot to say about full-time jobs growth. The budget also confirms that the number of full-time jobs created under this government is less than one quarter of the number created under Labor. The minister is pretty good at dodging and fiddling the figures from time to time, but let us put them all on the table today.I have already referred to the fall in the participation rate but I also raise the issue of the change in the employment services. It is one of the most alarming issues on the employment front today, and it goes to the need to actually offer a helping hand to the long-term unemployed. I am pleased to say that we actually had a plan when we were in government to try to help those long-term unemployed, many of whom are from a non-English speaking background. I note that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) has just walked into the chamber, and I assume that he is also concerned about the withdrawal of employment assistance not just to the people who live in Australia at the moment but also the new arrivals. They are not entitled to benefits. Also, under the employment services program that now exists in Australia, not only are they not entitled to benefits for two years, they are not even entitled to a free and comprehensive employment service to try to get them a job so that they do not have to walk around with the backside out of their pants because they are not entitled to benefits and not entitled to a free and comprehensive employment service.I go to the issue of long-term unemployment and the figures are interesting. The number of long-term unemployed people in Australia actually shot up by 6,400 in April. More importantly, there are now 33,200 more Australians who have been out of work for 12 months or more than when the Howard government began slashing the skillshare programs and the other job assistance programs, which amounted to cuts of $1.5 million even when you consider the so-called major announcement on the new initiatives on work for the dole. We have to acknowledge that that was announced in January but they tried to make out that it was yet another announcement in this budget. That announcement was actually made in a headland speech in January.The government is cutting programs and employment assistance services at a time when we have got not only a worsening situation on the employment front but, more importantly, a worsening situation when it comes to the issue of long-term unemployment. They are the people who really need comprehensive assistance case management, not a government that prides itself on a surplus for election purposes—and even, potentially, for tax cuts: the Treasurer (Mr Costello) refused to answer what I thought was a fairly telling question in question time yesterday about whether or not the surplus should be used for tax cuts. (Time expired)13:13:004748Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I would like to make some additional comments around aspects of the Job Network and what has occurred in my local area over the last couple of months. I have had a number of constituents contact my office, both in writing and verbally, to raise concerns about access to assistance and their particular circumstances and difficulties they have found in dealing with the new system.One particular example which I would just like to tell the committee relates to a woman in her late 30s who is married and whose husband is unemployed. This person has had extreme difficulty gaining assistance. She is someone who has quite good skill levels and she also understands, if you like, that you need to speak up when you have difficulties dealing with an organisation, so she has not been easily deterred.Upon initially making contact with a local provider, she was told she was ineligible for any assistance. Having then questioned that and being told that that was the way it was, she made inquiries to a local senator's office. That led to contact from the department later that night, when she was told, `You are eligible for assistance. There's no problem with that. We'll get someone to contact you again tomorrow.' Correspondingly, no contact was made the next day, but some contact was made the day after.After several phone calls over several days, the circumstances were such that she was then told, `No, you are not eligible for any assistance, but you can still use the facilities.' She subsequently went down to the Centrelink office and endeavoured to access the computer system there, but she does not have a PIN. She then sought to gain a PIN in order to be able to access that system and was told initially that she could get a PIN. Then, after a period of some days, she was eventually told that she could not. As I understand it, in terms of the operation of this computer system, if you do not have a PIN, you cannot get the details. Essentially, you can discover there is a job, but you cannot discover where it is. You are in a situation where you cannot access that sort of assistance.That poses a real question about people being denied access to the system because they are not seen as being as unemployed as others or are in a situation where their economic viability is arguably better than that of other people who are unemployed. It really raises the question: are we serious about trying to give people proper access to services?There is no doubt that the old CES was not perfect. It was sometimes a bureaucratic organisation, although I think governments of all persuasions, in order to try to deal with the unemployment problem, probably made too many adjustments over too short a time, which led to an element of organisational fatigue. But it was there, it was accessible, it was available and it was something that people, certainly in my local area, sought to utilise.With the changes that have been talked about and that are now in operation in terms of the Job Network, we have heard in the parliament and in the media about organisations that do not in fact exist or are in the process of trying to exist. There are some notable examples which show clearly that there are difficulties around the question of the operation of this new system. The argument from some is that that is just part of the process of establishing these things and that there will be bugs in the system. The problem here is whether in fact we are talking about bugs or whether we are talking about a system that is buggered. I have a feeling that we are talking more about the latter than the former.We are dealing with a situation where, through this process of privatisation, through this process of severely altering the entire raison d'etre of this particular assistance system for unemployed people, we are in fact ensuring that more and more people will drop off the statistics. That might look good in terms of the question of the unemployment statistics from the government's point of view but, in terms of the society we have and the society that we are developing into the next century, it has real implications if we are seeing more and more people drop off the statistics on the basis that they do not think there is any point in looking anymore.That has always been an issue, and that has always been something which underpins the question of how real the figures are. But we are seeing an institutionalisation of change within the system, which is going to lead to a situation where more and more people take that option of dropping out on the basis that they can see no hope under this government in terms of its new system.13:18:004750Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) is getting a little impatient with the issues being raised but, then again, I suppose when you represent the northern beaches of New South Wales, where unemployment as of April this year was 1.4 per cent, you would not see the issue of unemployment as being huge. Then again, if you represented Canterbury-Bankstown, where it is 9.2 per cent, Fairfield, Liverpool, Camden or Campbelltown, where it is 9.9 per cent, or the Fairfield- Liverpool area, where it is 12.1 per cent, or even the electorate of the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), where the latest available figures, from December last year, for the whole of his seat show unemployment at 15.4 per cent, you would understand the importance of this debate.I was going to the issue of the budget forecasts. To reinforce the rubbery nature of those forecasts, I want to compare some figures and put them on the table for discussion. I pose a question to the parliamentary secretary: how are we actually going to achieve a suggested fall in unemployment when you have a look at these figures over the last 26 months?Let us go to total jobs growth during the Howard government's first 26 months—235,800. During the last 26 months of Labor, the figure was 549,900. Let us go to the issue of full-time jobs growth. With regard to the parliamentary secretary's performance, with his mate the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), the figure is 118,100, as against our performance of 330,100. With regard to part-time jobs growth, the figure is 117,700, as against part-time jobs growth by Labor in government of 219,700 for those 26 months. The trend in unemployment during Labor's last 26 months was down 2.2 per cent. Under the first 26 months of this Howard government, the figure is 0.5 per cent. Youth unemployment has jumped to 27.1 per cent from 26.4 per cent, and the participation rate has fallen by over half a per cent, from 63.8 per cent to 63.2 per cent.I raise those issues because the budget forecasts suggest that growth will slump. It says it will slump to three per cent in each of the next two years, well below what all economic commentators suggest as a required level of growth—at least four per cent to even start getting unemployment down. So it is a very serious question that I think the parliamentary secretary ought to answer today for the Australian community. On the basis of their performance to date and the projected jobs growth figures, how are they actually going to achieve the suggested fall in unemployment over the next 12 months?In that context, I also refer to the forecast of 1.75 per cent employment growth for the year, which is even less than the original forecast of two per cent in last year's budget, which itself had to be reduced—yes, reduced—sharply mid-year to 1.25 per cent. In that context, in looking at the overall budget papers, I also note that the government predicts that the total number of unemployment benefit recipients will increase by five per cent from the beginning of the September quarter 1998.We have a government that is trying to create the impression out there that we are going to get people off benefits, that we are going to reduce unemployment, that we are going to really create all these jobs. Yet the budget papers suggest that the total number of unemployment benefit recipients will increase by five per cent. I know that over 3,000 employees of the department have lost their jobs because of the closure of the CES as a result of this budget, but it is hard to rationalise even that as leading to such an increase in the number of unemployment benefit recipients.Many participants in this debate have referred to the debacle which currently exists in employment services. We will continue on with that topic because there are major problems associated with it that must be put on the table. We intend to return to these issues when we come back after the suspension for lunch. They are of fundamental concern to the unemployed, especially to the two classes of unemployed currently existing in Australia as a result of this budget process: those who are classified as eligible job seekers; and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who are now classified as ineligible job seekers—and I am not just speaking of the migrants with whom the minister for immigration is concerned but Australians across all walks of life who are now denied a free and comprehensive employment service. In states such as South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory, basically they are being told, `You can get out there and beg or, if you have a few bob in your pocket, put your hand in and pay for employment services.' It is an ugly face of Australia with Australians being classified into two groups of unemployed: eligible job seekers and ineligible job seekers—and this being at a time when the employment situation is very difficult. (Time expired)13:23:004751Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—Obviously members opposite have run out of specific difficulties to raise with the departmental estimates and they now wish, through the shadow minister, to simply reiterate again and again how evil they think the government is. I suppose they are entitled to make those statements, but I would like to begin to answer some of the specific issues which have been raised previously by members opposite.First of all, I go to those matters which have been raised by the member for Bruce (Mr Griffin). I can understand the member's disappointment and I can understand the frustration of the Springvale Indochinese Association at not getting community support program funding. These programs, like all programs in the department, are allocated on a competitive basis. I can only assume that other people put in a bid to provide these services and that their bid was better.So across the country on a whole range of programs we have seen good programs—in some cases, quite good programs—being supplanted by better programs. In saying that, I do not in any way wish to criticise the programs offered by the Springvale Indochinese Association. I am sure it is an excellent organisation and I am sure it is doing great work.However, I would simply say to all the people of Springvale of Indochinese origin that with this program we are attempting to have the very best service—and as a department we are confident that that is exactly what we have. On this whole subject of services to non-English speaking background people here in Australia, I just make this point: in regions where more than 10 per cent of people are from non-English speaking backgrounds, all tenderers for the Job Network were required to demonstrate how they were going to help these groups.Finally, the member for Bruce (Mr Griffin) talked of the run-around one of his constituents got. Obviously there is nothing more frustrating that getting the run-around from member to senator to department to senator to department, and so on. I would like to say that that has never happened under this government; I would like to think it never happened under the previous government; I would like to think that it will never happen under any government. But the reality is that this kind of thing does happen, even with the best will in the world. I do say though that I am confident there is goodwill all around and, if the honourable member would like to tell me the name of this particular constituent, I will do my best to try to ensure that they get the service they need.The member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) raised the issue of the youth allowance. As the member for Throsby pointed out, the youth allowance is coming in very shortly. The point of the youth allowance is to try to end the previously existing disincentive to study, with people on unemployment benefits receiving rent assistance and not being subject to parental means testing.The member for Throsby has said that there are losers under the youth allowance—and he is absolutely right in saying that. But I ought to point out that, of the 560,000 thousand estimated recipients of the youth allowance, 378,000 will receive the same money as they do currently under unemployment assistance or Austudy; 137,000 will receive more money than currently, mostly because they are students who now will be eligible for rent assistance; 33,000 will receive a reduced amount; and 12,800, who are currently on unemployment benefits, will no longer receive those unemployment benefits because of the operation of the parental means test.Obviously these people will be frustrated, they will be disappointed, they will be angry. But I think it is a good principle for us not to provide or build into the system disincentives for people to study—and it is disincentives such as those that the youth allowance is designed to prevent.I now turn to the comments made by the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford). He claimed that there had been a 25 per cent budget reduction in funding for school to work programs. One particular item has been reduced by that amount. But, in addition to that particular item, there is $20 million a year in VET funding to cover this very point, and that is $80 million more than previously provided. I believe that we need to look at the budget as a whole rather than simply at one particular line item. (Time expired)Sitting suspended from 1.29 p.m. to 4.32 p.m.16:32:004752Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I refer specifically to the question of Centrelink referrals to the Job Network. I note from the budget papers that, as a result of these changes, we are talking about cuts of $147.6 million from employment services over the next four years. It would be interesting to know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) the referrals for the first month of the operation of the Job Network with respect to all forms of assistance; I refer to the abridged form of FLEX 1, 2 and 3.Can he give advice as to not only the total number of referrals by Centrelink but also the number of referrals with respect to each of the forms of the assistance, FLEX 1, 2 and 3? Can he confirm information supplied in a Senate estimates committee yesterday by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink, Mr Ross Divett, that for June the real figure of potential referrals will be of the order of 30,000, which includes job matching, Jobsearch training and intensive assistance—namely, FLEX 1, 2 and 3.I turn to the operation of the Job Network. I note that this represents the end of a 50-year tradition in the form of the closure of the CES. I also note—and I refer to advice from Centrelink as to how this department's Job Network will operate—that people are now classified as eligible job seekers and ineligible job seekers. In that context, is it appropriate to conclude that eligible job seekers are basically defined as follows: in essence, the only people entitled to any semblance of a free employment service, as strictly provided for by the government's policy position with respect to access to what is broadly described as FLEX 1, 2 and 3 services.I suppose the definition of eligible job seekers is Newstart recipients, youth training allowance recipients, special beneficiaries receiving payment under NSA conditions, sole parent pensioners, partner allowance recipients, widow allowance recipients, disability support pensioners, benefit parenting allowance recipients, carer pensioners, some special benefit recipients, CDEP recipient job seekers and all job seeker customers aged 15 to 21 years of age who are not in full-time education or employment, except for customers wishing to register with an outside provider.With respect to those so-called customers of the Job Network who are eligible for assistance, it is therefore appropriate to conclude that people other than those covered by those definitions strictly are not entitled to a comprehensive employment service by the new Job Network. In essence, they can possibly be charged if they do not fall into those particular definitions for employment services within the various arms of the Job Network.I also seek advice from the parliamentary secretary that, on the basis of those definitions, the following types of people are ineligible for a comprehensive employment service from this government: firstly, workers who have been retrenched, such as those potentially retrenched workers at Burnie, who under the government's arrangements cannot access social security benefits until the term of their retrenchment, annual leave and long service payments have effectively been worked out; secondly, women returning to work after possibly spending time bringing up children and whose husbands are already in jobs, be it on a part-time, casual or a full-time basis; thirdly, part-time workers who are looking for full-time jobs, or they may even be casual workers looking for full-time jobs; fourthly, students; fifthly, people in the six-week waiting period to be declared eligible for the dole; and, finally, newly arrived migrants banned from any benefits for the first two years after arrival. (Extension of time granted)I am seeking, through the processes available, a very clear position from the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not only those people defined as being eligible job seekers are automatically and properly entitled in the mind of the government to what is described as a comprehensive employment service, or whether or not the other people I have referred to are ineligible and classified as ineligible job seekers under the new arrangements.I am seeking confirmation from the parliamentary secretary of the department's view as to whether or not people classified as ineligible job seekers in some states and territories, such as in South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory, under legislation existing in those states and territories, can be asked to pay for employment agent services and that the cost could be, for example, a commencement rate of $250, which is a fee suggested with respect to some of the charges now applicable under the government's user pays principles in the operation of Employment National.I am also seeking clarification from the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not, as a result of the introduction of the Job Network on 1 May, prior to 1 May a lot of services were provided to employers free of charge, and that since 1 May there has been a change in operation with respect to government activities in relation to employment services aimed at trying to get the unemployed back to work; that, in essence, has resulted in employers having to put their hand in their pocket to pay for these services. Could the parliamentary secretary enlighten me as to the types of charges that Employment National has determined as being appropriate with respect to these services that they now charge employers for?I am also seeking advice from the parliamentary secretary as to how we could assist employers engaged in areas of seasonal employment, such as in regional Australia and the rural industry, and whether or not under these new arrangements those employers can be required to put their hand in their pocket and pay for services that may have been previously free to employers operating under such employment arrangements.I also pose a question to the parliamentary secretary that has been suggested to me by a range of employers. Because of these new charges, a number of employers may not use those services now because they are regarded as being beyond their financial capacity, especially small business. I would have thought that this government would seek to continue to portray itself as a friend of small business. Employers might resort to other employment practices, such as the engagement of illegal migrants and backpackers, and, in some instances, it may result in cash in hand and perhaps even further development of the black market in Australia. I wonder whether the department has considered whether or not there ought to be increased attention to inspection with respect to its association with the Australian Taxation Office as to the potential loss of the PAYE tax base as a result of these new charges and the impact on the employment practices of employers.I am also seeking advice from the department as to the number of organisations that previously helped long-term unemployed today as against what might have existed as at March 1996. I ask that because I clearly asked the parliamentary secretary today about the worsening situation on the long-term unemployment front. My suggestion was that there are over 33,000 more long-term unemployed today than as at March 1996. Is it true that the number of organisations providing help to the long-term unemployed has been more than halved from 321 organisations prior to 1 May to 125 under the new Job Network? (Extension of time granted)I turn to the issue of some of the expenditure announcements by the government in these budget processes. I note that the government suggests that there is new net spending of $327.8 million on jobs programs, confirmed in the budget. As my examination of the budget papers suggests, that includes $6.4 million extra in the budget to help people gain the skills necessary to begin an apprenticeship. I must say that I welcome the provision of $16 million over two years to increase the number of apprentices in group training. I also note the provision of up to $30 million in loan guarantees to group training companies. But the question I pose to the parliamentary secretary is: does that new spending of $327.8 million represent, unfortunately, less than one-fifth of what has previously been taken away by the government in the previous two budgets with respect to employment programs?I also refer to group training. What is the reason—I cannot find one within this budget process—for the failure to reintroduce commencement payments for apprenticeships in group training companies? I pose that question because, on my examination of the figures, we have a major emerging skills shortage in Australia. I refer to the fact that not only has the growth in traineeships fallen off in more recent times but also—and I seek confirmation from the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not this is true—the number of apprenticeship commencements since March 1996 has fallen by 5,000. I now move to the issue of new money for vocational education and training. In the budget paper it is suggested that there is some new expenditure. I also seek confirmation as to whether or not in previous budget announcements of the government since March of 1996 an amount of $269 million has been taken out of vocational education and training. I also understand that potentially those earlier cuts that I have asked for confirmation on reduce the incentive for employers to take on apprentices. I have noted that, for example, the growth in group training apprenticeship numbers has slowed dramatically from 25 per cent annually over the period 1993-96 to just 10 per cent anticipated for 1997-98. What are the parliamentary secretary's views with respect to those suggested projections on group training apprenticeships? I consider that we have a major problem with respect to the issue of training in Australia at the moment. I also seek information from the parliamentary secretary as to what processes are provided in the budgetary papers for closer consultation between the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on the problems of emerging skill shortages and the fact that it would seem that the department of immigration is now willy-nilly allowing people to come in from overseas to fill those emerging skill shortages whilst we have a situation in Australia where the number of apprenticeships has actually fallen dramatically by more than 5,000 commencements since Labor's last full year in office. In that context I ask is it true that, in 1994-95, 49,458 people started apprenticeships whilst in 1996-97, following the election of the Howard government, we are talking about a number of 44,127 apprenticeships? If the figures for those suggested apprenticeship starts are accurate, I would like to know where in these budget papers the parliamentary secretary can point to a very decisive strategy to reverse the falling number of apprentices. (Extension of time granted) I also seek information from the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not, in referring to the issue of apprenticeships in this day and age, the minister for employment also seeks to group not only the old traditional apprenticeships but what were previously called traineeships in which there was quite a considerable growth prior to March 1996. Is it therefore accurate to suggest that, in that context, when you actually separate the issues, not only do we have a fall off in apprenticeship commencements of 5,000 but also the rate of growth in traineeships has slumped from 161 per cent in 1995-96 to just 61 per cent in 1996-97? I have raised some pertinent issues today that this government ought to be concerned about and it ought to use these processes to give not just the Labor opposition a full explanation but more importantly the Australian public at large. Those issues—and we are still waiting for answers from the parliamentary secretary—went to whether or not he was satisfied firstly with an explanation of one of his former employees, Mr Oldfield, as to how he conducted his work and whether or not his travel was in accordance with his wishes. Secondly, there was the issue of whether or not the budget projections are actually accurate and whether or not they will stand up to producing a major reduction in unemployment.I have sought information on the Job Network as to who is eligible and who is ineligible. I have asked the question about accurate information on the announced government program expenditure as against cuts over the previous couple of budgets. I have asked a question regarding detailed information on the success of the new jobs network in its first month of operation and a question of referrals by Centrelink and what are the projections and the breakdowns, not just for the first month for each form of assistance but also the projections for the month of June. I have sought information on the falling rate of apprenticeships and traineeships, however they are called. I raise these issues because I think these processes are about accountability. My own view is that the budget talk in the papers has sought to hide a major problem in Australia at the moment with respect to a worsening situation on unemployment. I seek confirmation from the parliamentary secretary as to whether we expect an increase in unemployment over the next 12 months. I have also sought information from the parliamentary secretary as to the process of consultation between this department and the department of immigration to reverse an emerging trend by which skilled vacancies in Australia are filled by people from overseas whilst apprenticeships and traineeship opportunities in Australia fall off. I await the parliamentary secretary's response to those detailed requests for information.16:51:004756Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I begin with the matter of David Oldfield about which—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You want an answer?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I am very happy to talk about what happened, and I have already spoken earlier today about what happened. I think it should be obvious to the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) that, of course, in my judgment, my former staffer did misuse his entitlements. That is why I referred it to the department and the department, I presume for similar reasons, referred it to the police. Once that happens, it is out of our hands, as it were. It is out of the government's hands. The police made their decision on what they thought were reasonable bases. I really think that any further questions on the subject of that gentleman should be directed towards the Australian Federal Police.I think I have said all I can say on this and I think I have done all I can possibly do on that subject. As I said, he is still in the employ of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). As far as I am aware, he is on the Commonwealth's payroll and acting as the One Nation campaign director in Queensland. That strikes me as a strange kind of activity; nevertheless, that is really something that can be dealt with by other people in other places. The member for Batman might like to pursue that elsewhere.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He's your mate, not mine.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—It should be pretty clear to the member for Batman that he is not my mate. To come to some of the issues that have been raised by different people in this debate, the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) complained about what he said was the reduction of labour market services in Cessnock to just one. In fact, one person, one entity, Employment National, is providing full FLEX 3 services in Cessnock but there are two providers of what were called FLEX 1 services in Cessnock. The point that the member for Hunter well knows is that contracts to provide labour market services have been allocated on the basis of an open tender process.While it is obviously very disappointing when services which have done well and which have helped many people are no longer funded, the fact is that the funding decisions were made by the department on a blindfolded basis. They were completely removed from the political process as such. The member for Hunter has to accept that good services have been supplanted by better services. As the member for Hunter admitted himself in his contributions, there are services in nearby towns, some of which are available on an extension basis.The member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) spoke at some length about Dr Pickering's paper. I have not seen Dr Pickering's paper, but I am quite happy to ask the department to look at it and make an analysis of that paper and, on the basis of that analysis, I will happily respond to some of the contentions raised by the member for Scullin. I should point out that the vast bulk of funding under the new employment services market is to be paid to the jobs brokers once job seekers have been found jobs and have been kept in those jobs for six months. So it should not surprise the member for Scullin that a great deal of the expenditure would take place in future years.I should point out while we are talking about the general issue of funding that this government is going to spend more on labour market services generally in the four years from 1996, when unemployment was at eight per cent, than the former government spent in the four years up to the Working Nation statement, when unemployment was nearly 11 per cent. We are spending billions and billions of dollars on services for the unemployed. As I said, we are spending a half a billion dollars more in this current four-year period than the former government spent in the four years prior to Working Nation when unemployment was 11 per cent. This government is certainly not short of effort to help the unemployed. (Extension of time granted)The member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) raised a number of issues. The first issue he raised was that he wanted an explanation of the $1.8 billion in the budget papers for other services. I am advised that the vast bulk of that—namely, $1.6 billion—is to be spent funding employment services under the new labour market system. I am advised by people who are better at interpreting budget papers than I am—and better at interpreting them, I suspect, than the member for Dickson—that that is all there in the budget papers.The next question that the member for Dickson raised was: how many unattached staff are there on the public sector payroll as a result of the changes that have been made in labour market services? I am not in possession of a precise figure at present, but I am happy to get that figure. I will write to the member for Dickson to let him know what that figure is. I do want to assure the member for Dickson, who is so interested in all of this that he is not here to hear what is being said in response to him, that there is no-one doing nothing on the public payroll and that any unattached officers are in fact working in the public sector to advance the welfare of our nation, as all public servants do.The member for Dickson talked about one of his constituents, a Mr Irving, who he said was upset at being given the run-around, so the member for Dickson said, by various job agencies. We all get various people coming into our offices who feel disappointed with the level of service that they have received. For a constituency member of parliament there are few things more frustrating and few things more disappointing. But what a good local member does is make phone calls on behalf of the constituents. Perhaps that is what the member for Dickson is doing now. He may well be ringing some of the job agencies in his electorate on Mr Irving's behalf. There are certainly job agencies out there serving the people in the electorate of the member for Dickson who, I am sure, will only be too happy to help Mr Irving. I should now turn to the general question of labour market services as they are being provided under the new post 1 May regime. As the member for Batman and others know, labour market services are now being provided by a whole range of people. Labour market services that were once the sole preserve of the Commonwealth Employment Services are now being provided by many providers. As the member for Batman knows, there are now over 300 jobs brokers operating at more than 1,400 sites, whereas the old CES was operating at just 300 sites.There are all sorts of advantages in this new labour market: for one thing, there is a greater range of providers to choose from; for another thing, there are incentive payments built into the system; there is greater coverage; and there is greater client choice. It is a system which we believe is going to work much better than the old system. But it is a system which has only been in operation for one month, and one would hardly be surprised if there were not some glitches in this early period. On this question of cost to employers, yes, Employment National has made a decision to charge employers $250 for what it calls its standard service. Other providers, I am pleased to say, have made the decision not to charge potential employers for placing people with them.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Is it only $250?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—That is their standard service. The point I wish to make is that the alternative to using these providers is to put an advertisement in the paper, to have most likely hundreds—certainly dozens—of applicants and then have to sift through them all yourself. So I think that, at $250, the kind of service that is being provided by Employment National is very good value. (Time expired)17:01:004758Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I refer to the suggested number of outlets mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott). I would like clarification from the parliamentary secretary as to how many of those Job Network outlets operate on a full-time basis and how many are operated on the same basis as outlets such as, for example, the Employment National office at Katoomba. In Katoomba, up until 1 May, there was a pretty good service provided by the Centrelink office and directly opposite the Centrelink office, on the other corner, was the old CES office. During a recent visit to Katoomba, I found that that CES office had been closed. You could see from the black balloons hanging around the CES office the displeasure of the staff and the local unemployed at the government decision to close that office.How many of these new outlets that the parliamentary secretary refers to now operate on the same basis as the new Employment National outlet in Katoomba and make it hard for a person with disabilities to access it? This Employment National outlet in Katoomba is found in the main street in the Colonial Mutual building, if I remember correctly. To enter the outlet a person is initially required to walk up approximately 20 steps, go down the corridor past the dentist on the left, past the accountants, around the corner, down another flight of about six steps, past the male and female toilets and then find a closed door with a sign on it saying, `This Employment National outlet will be open one day a week for a limited number of hours.' When the parliamentary secretary refers to a specific number of outlets, I think we ought to get a full and proper explanation as to how many of those outlets are operated on a full-time basis and how many are operated on a four-, three-, two- or one-day per week basis. In that context, I am also seeking detailed information from the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not an article in the Courier-Mail of today relating to South Pacific Cruise Lines is accurate. On page 5 of the Courier-Mail this article refers to the cruise liner training operation falling over last year leaving 300 Queenslanders out of work. It also suggests that South Pacific Cruise Lines owes $550,000 to businesses and former employees. The article then goes on to suggest that an affiliate company of South Pacific Cruise Lines, CGI Financial Services, also owes about $600,000 to 27 companies, including banks in New Zealand and Germany.Is it true that the government made available $2.2 million in the form of Commonwealth government assistance to that company to train unemployed people? Can the parliamentary secretary also inform me as to what the government is seeking to get that company to pay back to the government. Firstly, what are the actual amounts that are owed by the company to the government for its failure to adequately deliver the services for which it was contracted? Secondly, what action has the department taken to recover that money? Thirdly, what is the view of the department—and of the Attorney-General's Department, if it has been consulted— as to the capacity of government to recover amounts for the taxpayer, and what are the amounts? 17:05:004759Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—On this question of cost to employers of having job seekers referred and put into jobs, as I said, Employment National is charging $250 for what it calls its standard service. If the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) wants to know what it charges for other services, he can quite easily go along to Employment National and they will give him their brochure, as Employment National at Brookvale gave me their brochure a week or so ago.But the important point to make is that there are many other providers in this new market who have pledged to provide services to employers, including small business people in the electorate of the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), for free. I would urge people who are unhappy with the $250 charge of Employment National to shop around and to find another service that is prepared to provide them with job seekers.Opposition members interjecting—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—They only have to look up the phone book to see there are Mission Employment, Options and Job Futures—there are any number of providers that are providing services to employers for free.The other issue that the member for Batman has raised in various ways today is not the cost to employers but the costs to job seekers. The first point I want to make is that every single job seeker in this country will have access through, at the present moment, 45—but, by August, 200—Job Network access centres at Centrelink that will give those job seekers access to the on-line computerised job display system. They will also have access to phones, faxes and computers. They will be able to conduct, if you like, their job search business from these Job Network access centres at Centrelink offices. Every single job seeker in the country will have access to this. This is a service that was never offered by the CES. It is a distinct improvement in the services being offered to job seekers by this government. Every single Australian, regardless of whether they are unemployed—Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! Honourable members will have their chance, if they wish to contribute in the proper way.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—It is not at all restricted. Everyone has access to the Job Network access centres that by August we estimate will be located at 200 Centrelinks around Australia. A further point I want to make is that job seekers on a benefit will pay nothing—never ever. They will not pay anything for the services that they get from Employment National or from any of the other jobs brokers. Those jobs brokers are required to offer their services to those job seekers absolutely for free. Now other job seekers may be required to pay something. For argument's sake, they may be required to pay $20 for the preparation of a CV. They may be required to pay something for those services. It is not an unreasonable requirement.The other point that needs to be made is that these are private sector organisations; they are not government organisations. Employment National is run on a corporatised basis. It is an independent organisation that is running its own race, as it were. Mission Employment—the Salvation Army operation—Options, Job Futures and all the rest of them are independent organisations that are running their own race. They are setting their own agendas and their own standards. But the point that needs to be made in response to some of the accusations from the member for Batman is that these are organisations with a strong social conscience. These are organisations with a deep sense of commitment.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Oh, come off it!EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Are you saying that Mission Employment lacks conscience and lacks the commitment? They have a very strong sense of vocation.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It is outrageous.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The member for Prospect has not got the call.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—My point of order goes to the question of relevance about Mission Employment. When he refers to reputable organisations, is he referring to—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, this is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.17:11:004760Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I will be as brief as I can. I apologise that I was not here earlier but, as an Independent member, you get a lot more calls from constituents than as a member of the government. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) a bit more about the $250 fee. I was also advised that figures as high as $800, and even in excess of that, could be asked of an employer by Employment National. This is my first question: is the parliamentary secretary able to give a guarantee that no figure higher than $250 is involved?Secondly, in relation to the parliamentary secretary's point about employers shopping around, I am not quite sure whether he realises it but some of these employment providers so-called will keep people waiting on the phone for 20 minutes at a time. If a businessman is going to ring up five employment providers and it takes 20 minutes for each one, there goes an hour and a half of his day, in the context of what is a very difficult day in business these days. I would ask him to be a bit realistic about that and perhaps examine whether or not Employment National can go back to providing the service that was previously offered. I did not quite understand the point made by the parliamentary secretary in relation to the Job Network access centre. Is he saying that any person—the underemployed—will have access to this Job Network access centre some time before the end of the year? I was not quite sure of that point. And is that something over and above what they can get now at Centrelink? At Centrelink now there is apparently a proposal to have an on-line facility available for people not on benefits—those who are just underemployed or not employed at all. Is there something more than that? Those are my points.17:13:004760Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—To put the mind of the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) at rest, yes, Job Network access is available to every single Australian who wants to utilise the service. The service comprises access to the on-line touch screens as well as access to phones, faxes, computers and photocopiers. So a job seeker can conduct job seeking activity from Job Network access centres, which I am advised are currently operational at 45 Centrelinks and which will, by the end of August, be operational at 200 Centrelinks. I am very happy to clarify that for the member of Dickson.The member for Dickson also asked whether I could give a guarantee that Employment National would not charge more than $250 to employers for providing people to fill jobs. The point that I need to stress to the member for Dickson is that Employment National is a corporatised entity.Opposition members interjecting—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—It is a corporatised entity in the way that, under the former government, Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank and so on were corporatised entities.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—So the answer is no?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—No, I cannot give that guarantee. But I see the smirks of members opposite. I see the smug look on the face of the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio). Is it so outrageous? Is it so appalling?Opposition members interjecting—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I must draw your attention to the cheer squad here. They have a role available to them and that role is to stand in turn and seek the call for five minutes. If they do not want to do that, they should go somewhere else and do some writing or something, but they should not think they are in question time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that they be removed from this place if they do not take the opportunity to speak properly and in turn.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—I thank the member for O'Connor for his point of order. The member for O'Connor makes an appropriate point and I bring it to the attention of all honourable members.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—For the first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Batman will withdraw that remark.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Not you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I meant the member for O'Connor.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am asking the member for Batman to withdraw it in any event.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I will withdraw the suggestion that it is the first time that the member for O'Connor has been in order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I asked for nothing more or less than for you to withdraw. I call the parliamentary secretary.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—This allegedly appalling principle—according to the member for Prospect—that under no circumstances can any job agency charge an employer for services rendered was in fact established and embraced by the CES under the former government. Under the former government, in New South Wales, the CES could charge $400 per placement to employers. In capital cities, the CES could charge between $100 and $300 per placement for the recruitment of temporary workers. In fact, the old CES charged certain employers in Tasmania between $75,000 and $100,000 a year to provide people to fill jobs. So the confected indignation and the spurious self-righteousness emanating from members opposite comes very ill. It is certainly deeply hypocritical of them to carry on in this way.The member for Batman also asked about job referrals from Centrelink. I am advised that there have been 90,000 referrals from Centrelink to job agencies for intensive assistance, or FLEX 3, in this first month of operation of the new market. The target was 95,000 referrals; 90,000 referrals have in fact taken place.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What about FLEX 1 and FLEX 2?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—For FLEX 2, I am advised that we are on target. I recall being told this morning that the FLEX 2 places were something like 70,000 for the whole year. Do not hold me to that, please. I will check the figure, but I was certainly told that we are on target for FLEX 2 referrals. FLEX 1 people are not referred at all. Job seekers are told about the various agencies that can provide labour exchange services. If they do not make contact with those within a period of about two months, they can be breached, but there is no referral as such for FLEX 1. (Extension of time granted)I now turn to some of the other specific issues raised by the member for Batman. He asked about group training companies. My understanding is that $1,500 has been added to the payment to most private sector employers. This payment has not been added to the apprenticeship completion payments for group training companies. I understand that the reason for this is that the private sector employers are required to pay tax on these payments and the group training companies, being not-for-profit organisations, are not, so that additional payment is being made to the private sector employers for apprenticeships to try to equalise their position with the group training companies.The member for Batman made some statements about falls in apprenticeship numbers. I am happy to look at the figures he quoted, but the figures I have suggest that this year we will have something like 200,000 people doing apprenticeships and traineeships, and I am advised that that is a better than 50 per cent increase since 1995. If the member for Batman has additional information, I am happy to look at it, but they are the figures that I have been given and I have more detailed figures somewhere amongst the papers I have been given that disagree with his figures. As I said, I am happy to look at the other figures he has.I guess I should go back to the comments with which the member for Batman began his remarks. He talked about what the real unemployment rate is, what might happen to the unemployment rate if the participation rate rose and so on. As we know, the official unemployment rate is given to us by the statistician. The statistician works on the basis of surveys. Surveys rely on what people tell the surveyor. I guess all I would like to say is that what we as a government are aiming at is full employment. Full employment as I understand it has always been defined as a situation where everyone who wants a job can get a job. Obviously, we are not at that position. The government has not been at that position, regardless of its political complexion, probably for the best part of three decades. Unemployment is far too high. We all know that. The member for Batman knows that. I know that. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) knows it. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) knows it.The question is what we should do to bring unemployment down. Obviously, the first thing to be done to bring unemployment down is to get the economy ticking over as well as possible. That is why the fiscal repair job done by this government is so important. That fiscal repair was largely responsible for the fall in interest rates, which in turn was largely responsible for the relatively buoyant economic conditions that we have got. Then we need to have a better educated and trained work force, and that is what our changes to the TAFE sector, our changes to the university sector and the various measures we have taken in the schools sector are designed to achieve.Finally, we need a better functioning labour market. This government has brought in incentive payments to those who are out there trying to help the unemployed. That is something that the former government, I think, might have liked to have done but did not. Obviously, if you are getting a meaningful incentive to get someone a job and keep them in a job, it stands to reason that you are going to go that extra mile, go that extra yard, and we believe that that is what is going to happen. If we are wrong, then the electorate will no doubt at some appropriate time judge us in the way that only the electorate can. The simple truth is that we have engaged some of the finest organisations in the country—religious organisations, charitable organisations and organisations with a deep sense of vocation and a deep commitment to do the right thing by Australia's unemployed.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Department of Social SecurityProposed expenditure, $1,5000,324,000Department of Immigration and Multicultural AffairsProposed expenditure, $548,420,00017:25:004763Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—There are three issues that I want to cover tonight in the social security area, but I just want to say a few general things first. It is the case, as so many Australians know, that this Howard government has cut billions of dollars out of the social security system in its three budgets. This is money which has come out of the pockets of the unemployed, people with disabilities and low income families. That is where the money has come from. It has not come from some other pot. It has come from some of the poorest people in this country. It came out of the pockets, as I said, of the unemployed, people with disabilities and low income families. They are the people who have borne the brunt of the cuts from this government. That is how this government has created a surplus—on the backs of these people, on the backs of the poorest people in this country.This government has made these individuals and families even poorer. Even worse, it has made it harder for these people to get ahead. It is a government which has indiscriminately cut programs, many of them programs which were aimed at helping people get back into the work force. In this way, the social security cuts have undermined the ability of the system to provide both security and opportunity. It is security and opportunity that the social security system should be providing. This government will increase poverty and it will add to the entrenchment of people further into poverty. It is a government that has not been interested in real reform or how to help people get off benefits and get back into work.The fact is that, under this Howard government, it is now harder for people to get off social security benefits and back into work. Cuts to child care have made it harder for families to earn an income. Families are, as a result of this government's recent changes to youth payments, now being forced to financially support their young unemployed adult children. People must use their savings before they can get unemployment benefits. Services and support for people with disabilities have been slashed. That is the achievement of this government when it comes to social security: make it harder to get off benefits and get back to work; increase the price of child care, so make it harder for families to earn an income; make families support their young unemployed adult offspring for longer; make people use their savings before they get any help to get back to work: and make it harder for those who have disabilities to get decent support.On the first and what I consider to be a very important issue, it is now harder for those Australians who are unemployed to get back to work. The government has made it even more difficult for those on social security to move off benefits and get employment. It has failed to create new jobs, to reduce unemployment or to help those who are unemployed. Most critically, the government has failed to provide the incentives that are necessary for people on benefits to take up work. We know that the unemployment rate is stuck at around eight per cent and that there are around 800,000 people on unemployment benefits. Most critically, more than half of these people have been registered as unemployed for more than a year. Long-term unemployment has risen under the Howard government, while at the same time, as we saw in the last debate, special labour market assistance programs for the long-term unemployed have been abolished.In fact, in March 1998, there were more than 13,000 additional Australians on unemployment benefits and related payments than when the Howard government came to power. So an additional 13,000 people are receiving benefits compared with when this government came into office. Just listen to what this mother of three had to say:People like me are put off returning to work if they are to be treated like this by the very people that want to reduce the amount of unemployment in the country. All I want to do is get ahead financially. I just want to make it known that there are people in the community, like me, who are in a catch 22 situation about returning to work.(Extension of time granted) The unemployment rate for sole parent pensions and people with a disability remains unacceptably high. The government has abolished the disability reform panels which helped people on the disability support pension get back to work. It is not at all clear to us how people with disabilities will be helped to find work under the new labour market arrangements.Of course, cuts to child care have made it harder for sole parents to find work. A recent report to the government says that sole parents will find it harder to get jobsearch help under the new arrangements, and they may now also have to pay for training. This evaluation report of the JET program done by the Department of Social Security says, in part:In the new labour market assistance environment, most JET participants will not receive intensive employment assistance, and . . . courses will be available only on a user pays basis. For income support customers, the cost will be prohibitive, and unless JET can offer an alternative, employment outcomes and subsequent savings to the Government will diminish.This is yet another example of the government reducing the incentive to work. The earnings credit scheme, of course, which allowed a person to save up some of their earnings before they lost their unemployment benefit, was abolished in the 1996-97 budget. In this budget, we have had another payment cut, an extra payment cut, that went to sole parents who are studying. Unemployed people say that it just does not pay them to work, they lose too much of their benefits. This is what one sole parent said:As a sole parent, the federal Government has directly cut my income as follows. First, as one of their public service cuts, I lost my professional job. My childcare fees have doubled. The poverty traps I face in attempting to do a small amount of part-time casual work have increased as a result of the abolition of the Earnings Credit.Can the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), who is at the table, explain to us why it is in fact the case that the government has reduced what was already only a very small and tightly targeted payment, this payment that was made to social security recipients and pensioner recipients who are seeking to improve their education, who are going back to school, TAFE or university and doing some more study. What do they get from this government? They get a reduction in their pensioner education supplement.I would be interested if the minister could actually inform us as to how many people, how many sole parents, will in fact have their benefit reduced by this change. Of course, the government is taking a saving, once again, at the expense of one of the poorest groups in our community. It is people on sole parent pensions who are going to have their pensioner education supplement reduced when they are trying to get out there, earn a little bit of money as a result of casual employment and do some study so that they can get ahead and get a better job. I would like to know how many people have been affected.Why is it the case that the government has seen fit to exempt those on the disability support pension from this rate change but, for some reason, take a saving at the expense of those on sole parent pensions? Once again, it seems that they really are singling out some of those who are the worst off in our community who are trying to make the best of a difficult situation and get back into the work force.The second issue I want to talk about is what this government has done to the young unemployed. As we now know, young unemployed adults who are living at home in families with incomes as low as $23½ thousand are now, from 1 July, going to start losing their unemployment benefits as a result of this government's introduction of the youth allowance. The budget papers were very helpful because, for the first time, we discovered how much this government is saving on the backs of the young unemployed and their low and middle income families—$428 million to be precise. Some $428 million is going to come out of the pockets of families with incomes as low as $23½ thousand. (Extension of time granted)If you are in a family on, say, average earnings of $35,000, the unemployed young person in that situation will find themselves, from 1 July—that is, of course, if they get the paperwork in time and get it in—$55 a week worse off. That is the approach that this government has taken to those unemployed young people and their families. If the young person is living in a family where the family income is $42,000, they will have to find $87 a week because their young unemployed person will not get any unemployment benefit—nothing.Effectively, the government is transferring responsibility for unacceptably high rates of youth unemployment to families. That is basically what has happened with the changes to the youth allowance. They have completely failed to reduce youth unemployment, so they are handing the responsibility back to the nation's parents.On this matter, I would like to know from the minister: in the process of taking $428 million out of the pockets of young people and their families, why is the Department of Social Security being given $70 million to do it? What is that $70 million going to be spent on? Why is it that it is going to cost so much money—$70 million—to take all of those payments off young people and their families? I have another example from a young person, who says:I am 18 years old, live with my parents, and currently unemployed . . . As of December my family has lived off one income of just under $28,000 per annum . . . Under the new legislation my family is now means tested on past income, despite the fact that for the last 6 months, we have been a single income family. I am now no longer eligible for any payment of any kind, Health Care Card etc.This is the reality of what this government is doing to the young unemployed. It is saying to them, `If your family has an income above $23½ thousand you will not be entitled to full unemployment benefits.' It is from that level of family income that, in fact, we will see a reduction in unemployment benefits. To repeat, once again, there is no question that this is yet another example of the government putting the responsibility for youth unemployment back onto families.A further issue that I wanted to raise tonight is another way in which this government has, over its three budgets, attacked the savings of different groups in our community. The government has, as a result of a number of different changes, forced people to now use up most of their savings before they get access to unemployment benefits. This was a 1996-97 budget measure, and I will go on to draw out how this theme has been repeated again in this year's budget.When the workers in Burnie find themselves unemployed because of this government's actions, just like those in Cobar, they will find that they have to use up their savings down to their last $2,500 before they get unemployment benefits. As a young unemployed fellow said to me:This was not the way I had wanted to spend my life savings . . . The whole experience has made me feel as though someone has stolen a large part of my savings.That was a young unemployed person who was hit by the liquid assets test and, basically, had his redundancy payments affected. For those who are over 55 but below age pension age, there is now the additional hurdle. Those workers are having their superannuation assets counted under the pension income and assets test. They are being forced to rely on their superannuation and, effectively, retire early. These two measures are hitting those workers who have been made redundant hardest. The government, I would have to say, just seems to want to get these people out of the work force entirely, and certainly off the unemployment queues. (Extension of time granted)We have had so many responses from people in the community about this change because they do believe that they are being punished by this government for saving. As an older man said to me:During these days of high unemployment workers will be forced to use these funds for living and searching for work instead of keeping them for their retirement. I myself have been retrenched three times now, and have kept my savings and Superannuating Payments in Approved Deposit Funds, instead of frittering them away, and now I am about to be penalised for being careful in trying to provide for my old age.That is the effect of this government's change on those who are over 55. What do we see in this budget when it comes to those who have been badly affected, once again, by this government? In this budget, those who have received lump sum compensation payments for pain and suffering, not for income loss, will be affected by one of the worst changes in this year's budget.Previously, if you had received a lump sum payment for pain and suffering, it was not treated as income for social security purposes. From July next year, people who receive lump sums above $10,000 will have their age pension, unemployment benefit or disability pension cut for up to 12 months.For example, an unemployed person who loses his leg in an accident and gets a lump sum payout of $25,000 for pain and suffering will lose all of his unemployment benefit, all of it, for 12 months. An old age pensioner who might fall over and, say, gets a lump sum of $15,000—and these are realistic amounts that people have received in compensation for pain and suffering—will lose $46 a fortnight out of her age pension every fortnight for a year. As an injured person said to us:To the people who designed this legislation—so I say this directly to the minister who is at the table—I would expect that they would sing a different tune if it happened to them. If I were to win money at the races, I would not be removed from the pension that I am on because of my injury . . . I always believed that Australia was about fair play. No more. It is about kick them when they are down.So, if you put all of these measures together, consider what the message is that the government is sending to people who are unemployed, to sole parents who are trying to further their education and get ahead, to people who have saved for their retirement or who have been paid a redundancy payment because they have lost their jobs, or to people who have had accidents, through no fault of their own, and have received payouts for pain and suffering.What is the government's message to these people? The government is saying to the unemployed, `Don't try to work your way off benefits because we're going to make sure it's not worth your while to do so.' It is saying to families, `Don't earn more than $23½ thousand because, if you do and you have an unemployed person living at home, we're going to cut their unemployment benefits.' It is saying to accident victims, `Don't use your lump sum to get a fresh start because we're going to take away your social security payments, if you do.' The Howard government says to older Australians, `Don't invest in superannuation because, if you are retrenched and over 55, we'll make you use it up before you get unemployment benefits.The next message, of course, coming from this government to social security recipients is just as perverse, and that is going to be the goods and services tax. Make no mistake about it, the goods and services tax will undermine people's chances of getting ahead. Not only will those items like food and clothing rise in price, but it will be equivalent to a cut in benefits. Also, the cost of getting a job will rise. People will have to pay more to get job help, more for getting their resumes together, more for child care and more to travel to work.I just want to finish with a quote from a mother, which I think expresses the way many Australians are feeling at the moment as the direct result of three rounds of deep cuts to services and support in social security. She said:(Extension of time granted)Many people from all walks of life that I speak to generally have been `hit' in some way by the Howard Government. It seems to range from loss of jobs, incomes and job security, cutting of basic community services (health, education, welfare) to higher costs for all basic necessities in life, leaving people caught in the middle and uncertain of the future . . . The nation is going backwards.I think that summarises what this government has done as far as social security is concerned.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Through you to the minister at the chair: I understand that my colleagues and I are all touching on immigration. Perhaps the minister might like to answer some of these social security questions before we move into the next sector of immigration. I am easy; it might be appropriate.17:46:004767Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—Let me first just thank the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) for her comments in relation to the social security issues. I will deal with them fairly shortly, primarily because I think the speech was one which canvassed issues quite widely. From listening to the honourable member's comments, I conclude that I could well have engaged her as my speech writer for those speeches I made about the many decisions which at that time were taken by the former government when it was in office. I will not delay the chamber long; I will use the balance of the time and then resume my place.As I was listening to the honourable member's concerns about some of the changes we had made to the social security system—changes which I see largely as being designed to maintain the integrity of that system—an interesting point occurred to me. We have made these changes to address the sorts of issues that need to be addressed if you are intent upon ensuring that the scheme is one which is fair, remembering that it is not an universal scheme in terms of pension eligibility and that it has maintained assets and income testing, the introduction of which the Labor Party, in part, was responsible for—particularly the testing in relation to assets.I found the honourable member's comments a very interesting set, especially when she made the suggestion that a number of initiatives which have been designed to maintain the integrity of that system, particularly in relation to the assets area, should be opposed. I take it that, having raised the criticisms, that is what the honourable member was intending. Yet you have to marry that up with the sorts of commitments that the Labor Party is making.Is the Labor Party about taking each of these matters through in a budget context and restoring each of them? That would have implications for a budget that a Labor government, if one were to come into power, would be obliged to implement. It also would have an impact upon the budget surplus. It would be interesting to know whether the honourable member is adhering to the line that you can make these sorts of criticisms but they are not matters which you would seek to address in office.Another interesting point that occurred to me as I listened to the honourable member's observations was the reference to the impact of our measures in cutting millions out of the system for the unemployed. First, she disclosed in her own comments that the unemployed are down, at the moment under eight per cent, and then she suggests that there are additional people on benefits. That seems to me to be mutually inconsistent with the proposition that you are advancing—that we are stripping benefits away from the unemployed, and yet at the same time the number of people on benefits allegedly is going up.As for comments that have been made in relation to JET and the other matters pertaining to compensation and also to young unemployed, I will pick those up if time permits. But, if not, if the honourable member wishes, I will give a more detailed response.17:50:004768Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I rise today in my first opportunity on the occasion of the National Day of Italy to pay tribute to the great contribution that the Italian people have made, and continue to make, to the growth and development of Australia. This year marks the 50th anniversary since the formation of the Republic of Italy in 1948. I want to pay tribute to the Consul General of Italy, Dottore Francesco Catania, and the Italian National Day Committee.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! I do not want to interrupt the honourable member, but we are dealing with the expenditure of the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—Yes, I thought I was in order. They worked very hard to organise a most successful `festa' in Sydney on Sunday at which the minister was in attendance. I would also pay tribute to His Excellency Ambassador Giovanni and Signora Castellaneta for the warm hospitality they extended to their guests at a reception held at the Italian Embassy. The embassy reception was a particularly grand occasion because of the presence of the `Bersaglieri Band'. The Bersaglieri Corps, an elite force—OJ4TAYLORMr Taylor—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Whilst I do not want to unnecessarily interrupt the honourable member, I just ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether this is not more appropriate to an adjournment debate in the other chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I drew that to the attention of the chamber. I am sure the honourable member for Lowe will bring it into the portfolio of immigration. However, although there is a wide latitude here, he should bring it back to that portfolio. I think there is some validity in what the honourable member for Groom says, but I do not want to be hard line here. If the honourable member could perhaps throw in immigration and multicultural affairs every so often, we could get over this technical difficulty.ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—The federal government has provided funds for the function that I refer to, and I will come to more specifics in a moment. As long as the member for Groom (Mr Taylor) keeps taking points of order, I might not be able to get through what I want to say.OJ4TAYLORMr Taylor—It was a very short point of order.ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—The Bersaglieri Corps, an elite force of the Italian Army, founded on 18 June 1836, performed some impressive trumpet pieces, including the ever popular O Sole Mio —which, of course, they repeated today in the national parliament. The baptism of fire of the Bersaglieri came in 1848 during the first Italian War of Independence. They later distinguished themselves in all the wars of the Italian Risorgimento of the 19th century and, in particular, they took part in the takeover of Rome as the capital of Italy in September 1870.The Bersaglieri continued to distinguished themselves on many occasions and their outstanding achievements and bravery were recognised even by their enemies on the battlefields. Today, the Bersaglieri are mainly involved in historical re-enactments and official ceremonies. They frequently provide concerts at public celebrations, military parades and tours.On the occasion of the National Day of Italy, it is fitting to thank the many Australians of Italian background, my wife included, for their contribution to many facets of our way of life in Australia through their language, culture, heritage, values, music, architecture, commercial and business links.Migration is always a traumatic experience, even when it is to a country that has solicited people to come and has accepted them as citizens. It is often an agonising experience because migrants leave not only their country, city, friends, traditions, customs and values, but also because they leave behind a part of themselves. They become strangers in a different, and often indifferent, environment. They feel isolated, defenceless, vulnerable, with a desperate need to acquire a new sense of identity. They need security not only in material things but also, and especially, in their cultural life. They need to feel accepted as human beings and not dehumanised by being told to `assimilate' as if they were non-persons.Migration represents a moral and political challenge both for the migrant and for the host country. Although mass emigration to Australia did not commence until after World War II, Italians have always had a presence here. When the First Fleet arrived in 1788, there were two Italian born people on board. From the 1850s, Italians came to settle in our country in increasing numbers.Today, Italians are Australia's largest non-English speaking group. Italian-Australians have made a rich contribution to Australia's history and culture. Without doubt, Italian culture generally and immigrant Italians in particular have exercised a major influence on Australian life. The origins of this influence can be traced back to the period even before the First World War.I must leave it at this point. I was going to seek leave to continue, if I could.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The honourable member will have to make some reference to the expenditure before the committee. As the member for Groom says, you really are making an adjournment speech and it might be more appropriate to do that tomorrow. You have the call but, unless you are going to finish shortly, if you do not refer in your remarks to the relevant expenditure, I will have to rule you out of order.ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—I will make reference to it because, as I said, there has been a cut in the budget and it is a shame that so many people of Australian-Italian background will feel that they are not getting as fair a shake as has occurred in the past. However, I will continue.Unlike many other immigrant groups—and I am speaking in support of people of Australian-Italian background, whose very special national day was yesterday—Italians were geographically dispersed throughout the Australian colonies and they worked in a wide variety of occupations, such as land clearing, road building, cane-cutting, tunnelling, mining and quarrying, and agriculture.OJ4TAYLORMr Taylor—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the honourable member is really straining the line.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I take the point put by the honourable member for Groom. I think the honourable member for Lowe is almost finished. Am I right?ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—Yes, I am almost finished. I am down to my last two paragraphs.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You have taken one five-minute allocation and you are halfway through the next five minutes in a speech in which you have not really related to the portfolio, so you should really wind it up now.ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—Yes, I am winding up. Australia today is what it is because of the momentous and historic contribution of the Australian-Italian community. I want to express thanks to Gianfranco Cresciani, Stephen Castles, Caroline Alcorso, Gaetano Rando, Elli Vasta and Helen Ware whose documents I have pursued for this information and also to the Parliamentary Library staff for their assistance. I conclude by saluting the one million Australians of Italian background and by wishing them a happy 50th anniversary of the founding of the Italian Republic, their ancestral homeland.17:58:004770Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise to speak in the limited time available to me—and I hope it is for more than three minutes; I hope the clock will be put back five minutes, as I was generously giving up my time to listen to a rendition by the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) who spoke previously. I must admit that, in one respect, I have to congratulate the member for Lowe on his remarks in respect of the Italians and how they have settled in this country and made Australia, I believe, the wonderful country that it is.I would like to touch more on the budget documents we have before us, particularly those dealing with, as I said, immigration. I would like first to touch on the family reunion program under the immigration portfolio—and I am glad the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) is present in the chamber. I would like to reiterate the coalition's policy document of 1996. In fact, it was on 9 February that this statement was made, containing in part:The family is the foundation of our society and must be at the core of immigration and settlement policy. Our goal wherever possible is to reunite dislocated families.I have brought that up in relation to the budget documents particularly because, rather than achieving that goal, I believe the coalition now has effectively ended the preferential category and slashed the numbers, both in absolute and in proportional terms.I turn now to look at what the budget and the budget documents have told us. The total migrant intake has fallen in real terms—the proportion, in other words, constituted by the family reunion program. In 1995-96, we saw an intake of 82,500, 68 per cent of which was family reunion. In the next budget—the first coalition budget of 1996-97—we saw that drop to 60 per cent. We then saw the intake go to 47 per cent—or a population of 32,000—of the planned intake for the 1997-98 year. I believe, from reading through the documents and some of the statements made by the minister, that we are going to see that fall again.When one looks at the documents one will see that measures taken to reduce the number of permanent resident visas granted in the preferential family category have included sponsorship, which is now limited to Australian citizens. That was a decision made by this government in October 1996. We have seen the introduction of a tougher new test for parent entry.0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—The Senate knocked it out.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I will come to that also. Whereas the pre-existing test required that half or more of the children be resident, the new test required that the majority of the children reside in Australia. That was another decision made by the minister in December 1996. We saw the introduction of the mandatory requirement that family sponsors sign an assurance of support agreement, secured by a bond refundable in the event that no claim is made on social security.We then saw an introduction of a requirement that a de facto spouse prove a one-year pre-existing relationship with the sponsoring spouse. Again, that was a decision made in March 1997 by the minister. We then saw the introduction of `cap and queue' limitations on the number of visas issued to aged parents and working age parents. This extended the categories capped but did not cap the spouse or the dependent children. That was also a decision made in March 1997. In the 1996-97 budget, the program target was reduced from 48,720 to 36,700. The outcome ultimately being that 36,700 visas were issued.These changes occurred as a result of legislation and regulations. What I would like to point out, as the minister has brought to my notice, is that where the Senate rejected the government's amending legislation or disallowed a regulation these policies were then implemented by ministerial policy directive. The government introduced policy changes in the field of immigration by administrative action, despite the parliament's rejection of those policy changes. As we know, the processing priorities, which also determined the order in which we view applications, will be considered to give priority to applications where the sponsor is an Australian citizen, the applicant is the child of a permanent resident or citizen, and, in the case of the parent visa applications, the majority of the person's children are Australian residents.I would also like to briefly touch on exactly what the government has done in the 1998 budget. Not surprisingly, as we are aware that in the Queensland election coming up on 13 June preferences have been given to the One Nation Party, this budget again fails to deliver the funds for the $10 million anti-racism campaign it promised Australians prior to the last election. There is no commitment from this government for multiculturalism in this budget. In this budget the government has also completely ignored the need to provide help to get newly arrived migrants into jobs.No initiative has been taken to improve the prospects of migrants who no longer get unemployment benefits to receive any active assistance to find work in their first two years in Australia. There have been no specific targeted allocations to restore any funding to assist ethnic communities to set up ethno-specific nursing homes and hostels, which is a subject I touched on again last night. I mentioned the fact that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs had recently been at a Croatian village to turn over the first sod for the nursing home part of their application. (Time expired)18:03:004772Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I wanted to say a few words in relation to the appropriation concerning social security. I wanted to concentrate on the 18- and 19-year-olds who have lost their unemployment benefits. I would like to address the issue of the withdrawal of unemployment benefits for 18- and 19-year-olds living with their parents who earn more than $23,400. The government describes these families as relatively well off. However, the effect of this decision is to force some 27,000 unwilling unemployed young people back into the school system without any examination as to why these young people left school in the first place.This decision shows a complete lack of understanding by the government as to why young people leave school prior to completing their higher school certificate. In most cases, this is because they have lost interest in the school environment. This attitude may have come about because of a range of issues, such as a change of school, emotional problems and difficulties at home. This decision continues the pattern that has permeated the whole government in its short history of winding back its involvement in assistance to those people in the Australian community who have been worst affected by this government's inability to distribute the wealth of the country evenly among its citizens.I would like to address one issue in particular relating to the students income test, which enables applicants to qualify for Austudy. The government's legislation considered the effect of other payments such as termination payments, lump sum leave payments and other leave payments. The legislation set out provisions to apply the income maintenance period to Austudy recipients. This income maintenance period is a new provision as far as Austudy is concerned and means that if a young retrenched worker has accumulated, say, four weeks annual leave that period of leave must be used up before the worker becomes entitled to Austudy. This is a principle which I strongly disagree with.Leave entitlement at the point of termination is money belonging to the worker to use as he or she sees fit. If a worker realises that his employment is in jeopardy, he may accumulate leave entitlements with the view of meeting some financial commitment that he will be unable to fulfil due to a lack of income if he is retrenched. It is morally wrong to ask a worker to live on his accumulated leave entitlement until it is exhausted. That money could well be used to help pay off a home or other debts and enable that worker and his family to have a little less stress than has already been inflicted by retrenchment. However, this whole provision is rather a penny-pinching exercise when you are dealing with low income people with irregular work patterns and is another example of this government reducing entitlements to battling Australians to the lowest common denominator.Against the background of the government's policy of forcing families to support young people in the transitional period between school and work, you have a situation of falling income for both full-time and part-time workers. I refer to an excellent paper, Australia's youth, reality and risk produced by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum, which states on page 16:Many 15-19 year olds have no income at all and are dependent on their parents. This proportion increased significantly between 1982 and 1994-95.The average income of these 15 to 19 year olds receiving some income was $150 a week in 1994-95 and had fallen significantly in real terms since 1987. Incomes of all part time workers in the 15 to 19 population (including students) fell by nearly 30% between 1982 and 1994. The income of full time workers also fell but by much less than part time workers. There was a big drop in the number of 15 to 19 year olds working full time.Teenage unemployment has increased and the proportion of teenagers with no income has also increased, as the eligibility criteria for government payments have become more stringent.For those unemployed 15 to 19 year olds receiving an income, real income levels have fallen slightly since 1982.Rather than a belt-tightening exercise, the government should be increasing the demand for employment opportunities for our young people rather than cutting their benefits. It should also, at the same time, be implementing policies that reverse the fall in school retention rates.18:08:004773Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I want to briefly respond to the comments of the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Mossfield). I note that this is a further opportunity for addressing comments to a matter that has been extensively debated in the House of Representatives and the Senate in relation to legislation that has been before the parliament. The issues have been well canvassed there.The youth allowance arrangements involve the Commonwealth in very significant additional payments. While some have faced reduced benefits, a system was put in place which the former government, I think, recognised was appropriate but never was able to come to grips with. It is one in which a range of benefits paid to people who are participating in education and training should be comparable with those who are on benefits and unemployed.If you have a system in which young people will absent themselves from school and from further training in order to be able to access more generous benefits, which was the case previously, then you have a system in place which in the longer term is going to disadvantage Australia as a country. Young people who ought to be able to receive training and education would elect not to do so and would be therefore, in the longer term, significantly disadvantaged in terms of future employment opportunities.We do not resile from the fact that these changes have been undertaken, but they were undertaken in the context in which there were very significant additional expenditures assumed in order to raise the benefits that were available to those who were in education.In relation to the leave issue, I think it is just a question of a philosophical approach. I am surprised that, having come from a party that introduced assets testing, you would take the view that leave payments, which essentially are payments in the nature of salary at a time when a person is away from work. Leave payments, which may have accumulated over time, should not be treated as income in the hands of the person for the time in which the leave accrued. To suggest that the money should be then used to pay off debts or to spend in perhaps more frivolous ways in order to provide a benefit to my way of thinking flies in the face of the nature of the payments that are being made. To the extent that the honourable member has raised any other matters that require more detailed elaboration, I will ask my colleague in the other place to write to him directly.18:11:004773Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I indicate to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) that the honourable member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), as the shadow minister, sends his apologies. He is in the chamber on chamber duty, although I suspect that if this continues until after the dinner break that, like Macarthur, he might return.Unfortunately, when discussing budgets over the last couple of years there has been one hardy perennial that has come up in discussing this portfolio. In the area of multicultural affairs that, of course, is the anti-racism campaign which was promised to Australians before the last election. I think it is appropriate to put this matter in the context of the events of this week and the decision of the coalition in the Queensland election to give preferences to Pauline Hanson's One Nation.I think there is a mood out there in which people are questioning whether there is a diminishing commitment to multiculturalism from this government. One of the best ways that the government could illustrate that it is not walking away from multiculturalism would be to put in place this oft promised anti-racism campaign. The only mention of it in the portfolio budget statements is that there has been a carryover of funding, and under the performance forecasts for 1998-99 there is a dot point which states:an anti-racism campaign to promote community harmony will be developed and implemented.But, really, we need it and we need it tomorrow. In my electorate of Scullin something like over 40 per cent of the people were born overseas. They are from diverse backgrounds. Some nine per cent were born in Italy. I commend the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) on his comments about the 50th anniversary. Also, in an electorate like Scullin we have many people from the new wave of migration coming to live in the area, including Indochinese and refugees from the Horn of Africa or Iraq. These people are doing it hard enough without racial tension.On Saturday morning I had a young Iraqi refugee come up to a mobile office I was conducting to indicate that she has been here in Australia for three years, and she and her sister are still unemployed. They have enough settlement problems without extraneous pressures being placed upon them because of what they perceive to be a growing tendency within the Australian community to not necessarily welcome them with open arms. I think the majority would like to welcome them with open arms but, unfortunately, there has been a sense that minority views within the Australian public are getting prominence.I urge the minister—I do not know under what difficulties he is operating to get this campaign off the ground—to act in the knowledge that the opposition supports him in getting this campaign off the ground. I believe that a campaign such as this, which illustrates that multiculturalism has been a very positive thing for the Australian community, is very important. Deep down, we would all agree with that. I am not sure what the messages are. I am not sure whether a different definition of multiculturalism is developing that portrays it negatively. If so, I believe that is wrong. At Melbourne airport, the state government has a sign stating `Multicultural skills build your business'. The Victorian government is pushing multiculturalism as an asset of the state of Victoria. We really need to look at whatever the impediments are or have been to getting this campaign off the ground and to ensure that it does get off the ground.There are several items within the budget that, if I get the opportunity, I shall return to. I note that one major item in the area of ethnic affairs that is contained in the budget is a social security related matter. It is the cut of $42.5 million over the next four years by the extension of the two-year waiting list to especially New Zealand citizens under a reciprocal agreement. If you characterise the other sorts of expenditure items, there is really not much in this budget for immigration and multicultural affairs related matters. There is one particular revenue matter that I will return to when I get the opportunity soon.18:16:004774Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I commence by supporting the comments of the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) about multiculturalism. If the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) needs any further help in getting his arguments through cabinet, let us remind the coalition of its multicultural affairs and settlement policy statement of 9 February 1996. Under the heading of `Racial Vilification', it states:All Australians have a responsibility to stamp out racism wherever it occurs. Australians recognise overwhelmingly that education is the only long-term viable approach to the eradication of racism.As the member for Scullin said, the $10 million that was promised was rolled over from one budget to another. It has now been rolled over again. The minister set up a committee in August 1997, when he announced that market research was to be conducted to assist with the development of that campaign. Progress certainly has not been very public or, if it has, I am not aware of it. I have not seen or heard a lot about it. I particularly ask what progress has been made with that campaign.Whether we like it or not, we are seeing overt and covert racism increasing. Even though all of us stand up very proudly and say that we are against it, I again reiterate, as I said earlier, the position of the Queensland coalition government colleagues of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to direct their preferences to the One Nation party. They certainly do not seem to be flying the flag and saying, either individually or collectively, that they disagree with the statements coming out from the individuals in that party.The communities that I and the member for Fowler (Mr Ted Grace) represent are certainly very proud of our multicultural identity. The logo at the entrance of Fairfield city states that we are here celebrating diversity. All of us, both as Australians and particularly as parliamentarians, should be making sure that we get the message across to not only those people we represent but also other members of government so that at least some of the promised programs of the great election campaign of March 1996 will start being delivered. In all due respects, we have waited for three budgets. We have seen, as I said, two budgets roll over that money. As my colleague the honourable member for Scullin has said, it is now going to come into effect next year. Can we be so sure?While talking about what has been cut, I also mention the $166.9 million in revenue that will now be taken on as income by the government with the introduction of the $50 levy for non-electronic travel authority countries. I was rather disturbed when that was first mooted and spoken about. One reason we were given at the time was that we now need to look at these countries where a lot of people are coming in as visa overstayers. We are bringing in this $50 levy on visas so that inbound tourists to this country meet their commitment. At the same time, it will allow us—I will quote the minister, but not verbatim—to use that money to have officers watch our shores.If you look at the statistics the minister circulates around to us on a regular basis, you will find that those at the top of the list of overstayers in this country come from the UK. The next highest, if my memory serves me correctly—I have not brought the papers with me—are people from the United States, and it goes down from there. The people we are going to charge visas to are certainly not from any of those countries. They average two to three per cent of overstayers. That is where we are introducing that visa levy. It will be interesting to see how that eventuates and whether that income will be used as the minister has directed—I have no problem in thinking he is very sincere in saying what he has—or whether it will end up in consolidated revenue. Perhaps we will have to read next year's budget papers to make sure where we go from there.This year's budget shows an $11.8 million cut to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which is a decrease of 33.7 per cent. We also see that $2.8 million will be saved by discontinuing the Australian assessment of community English skills or, in other words, the ACCESS test. We also see that $2.1 million will be cut to legal aid funding, which means further limited representation for migrants and refugees. Further, $2 million will be saved by the government over four years through the closure of loan funds operated by the International Organisation for Migration. That is certainly another cut in this budget. We then look at the 1998 budget increases. I will touch on some of the increases that have been there from the 1997-98 financial year. An amount of $51.6 million will be spent over four years on the enhancement of visa processing and the board of monitoring. An unspecified amount will be spent on the redevelopment of the Villawood detention centre, and I ask for a further explanation for that. (Time expired)18:21:004776Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I will take this opportunity to deal with one topic raised by both the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) and the honourable member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio), and it concerns the government's commitment to implement education programs to deal with issues relating to race. It is a very serious matter. I have made it abundantly clear over time that, when this is done, I want to get it right. As a threshold to initiating our consideration of this matter, we did undertake very extensive research to ascertain what benchmarks there were around the world for programs to deal with these sorts of issues which had been successful in changing attitudes. We found that—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Not like the push polling survey in Canberra recently.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I will deal with that, too, if I may. The search was unsuccessful in terms of producing research that was able to demonstrate that results of that sort were obtainable. The second aspect of our inquiries was to undertake very extensive consultations with ethnic communities and people interested in these questions. The view was that if you are going to go out, regale people and say, `You are a naughty person. You are a racist', such a program would not work. Those comments came back to us over and again. It needed to be something positive that built up our self-esteem about what we have been able to achieve and how we can go further.That prompted us to undertake very comprehensive research, first of a qualitative type followed by quantitative surveying.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Yes, I read the Canberra Times .0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The honourable member said that she was not aware that we were doing anything. She was aware of the report of one person who was surveyed about some statements that had been developed in focus groups. I read it too. Those statements were not statements of the government. It was not push polling, as the honourable member put it.What comes out of quantitative research testing qualitative statements is some knowledge of the extent to which particular views are held by segments of the community. It provides a basis upon which we can benchmark for future inquiries the extent to which those sorts of issues have been addressed by what we are going to do. We are intent in putting in place those arrangements. I look forward to cooperation from the opposition in implementing that program. I will be keen to do it as quickly as possible.We are and remain committed to multicultural Australia. Do not believe me; take the Prime Minister's statement from the launch of the discussion paper by the National Multicultural Advisory Council. We have endorsed—it was a bipartisan position that is in the policy documents you are reading—the `National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia'. The various elements of it have our support, and that support remains.I am about implementing programs to enhance our cultural diversity and the extent to which people are accepted as Australians within the Australian community as a whole as part of our Australian family. I do that through all my public comments and statements and do so very deliberately on behalf of the government. I would not in any way countenance a view that there is a lack of commitment that can be demonstrated by anything this government has done for multicultural Australia.18:26:004777Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The largest figure in this portfolio's estimates of the budget is $166.9 million in revenue, which relates to the change to visa application charges for non-electronic travel authority visitor visas. That is $166.9 million over four years. The outlays relating to that under the enhancement of visa processing and border monitoring contained in budget paper No. 2 over the same four years show an increase of only $51.6 million. This answers a question by the honourable member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) about this measure really being a cash cow. The money is just being returned to consolidated revenue.Over $110 million is much greater than anything else contained in this year's budget for this portfolio. This concerns us in the context of a $2.7 billion surplus. We would have hoped there was a more generous spirit and not continued displays of mean spiritedness in addressing some still very important issues regarding the way in which we provide services for migrant Australians.I return to the Iraqi refugee issue. Being unemployed, very little assistance is given to those people, and that is wrong. I believe that they deserve, as part of our commitment to them, to get assistance and, to a degree, special assistance. We have a great concern that the $50 charge for non-electronic travel authority visitor visas is just being used as a revenue raising measure.I want to briefly mention the Villawood detention centre. I will allow the honourable member for Prospect to have a bigger go at it. My only interest in it is the way in which there is transparency in budget papers. Opening one where, under the financial implications, it says `NFP', which I gather means `not for publication', is a problem. If government is going to say that they have this charter of budget honesty, we hope to not see too many of these type of items creeping in.I add that this is one difficulty when going down the privatisation track. I note that this is something under a BOOT concept. In other contexts, I have had some difficulty with that concept. Sometimes we lose transparency in not only the financial implications but also a whole host of operating matters. I would hate to see this creep in under this guise. I know that the honourable member for Prospect has indicated her concern about it. It struck me in perusing the budget papers that it did not seem to really help proper discussion and debate about important issues, such as handing over to private concerns such a migrant centre.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:004777Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Before the break we were talking about immigration. I had started to touch on the redevelopment as indicated in the budget papers for the Villawood detention centre. The member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) also touched on this by making reference to the fact that I would be returning to it, and how right he was. Having witnessed the growth and non-growth of the Villawood detention centre for quite some time, as it is at the periphery of my electorate, I can understand and appreciate that certain changes need to be made to it. What I cannot understand is that, even though it has been indicated in the budget papers that changes are about to take place on it, we see continually written here, `Not for publication'.I do not believe that is the way to go. I think it is going to create mistrust in the community at large as to what this means. It is all very well to say that we are looking for private investors to build it, own it, operate it and we will pay rent for it, but I think that people—and it is the taxpayers I mean when I refer to the people—are going to demand a lot more than that. They are also going to demand from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) that, if there is an indication in the budget papers that certain building programs need to be adhered to and certain changes need to be accommodated, surely a lot more information has to come in, rather than having `NFP'. I would like the minister to answer that question in his reply as well. I do not believe that in the eight or nine budgets I have seen since I have been a federal member that I have ever seen that before. Perhaps I could be enlightened if this has occurred before—that budget papers have indicated `Not for publication'. I do not know that that is the normal practice, but perhaps I could have that explanation given by the minister when he replies to some of the objections we are raising to the proposed budget expenditure that is before us. There are other areas I would like to very quickly cover. We touched on some of the obligations that have not been met. I do not want to repeat those, but I do feel that I have to reiterate, as we have done in the past, the service reductions that have happened in the minister's area of responsibility since he has become the minister and since the Howard government was elected in March 1996. In that time, and we have seen it through budget paper after budget paper, we have seen something like five Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs offices closed. These are offices that were in suburban and regional centres. We are all aware of the one in Townsville, but as well as that there are Chatswood and Wollongong, and Sunshine and Geelong in Victoria. I wonder whether this is an indication that there will be more and more closures. The other area of concern I have relates to what we have not provided in English language programs and settlement programs. I remind the minister of the reference I made to the policy statement of the then opposition, which is now the Howard government, of 9 February 1996. A particular statement regarding English language programs was made in that document. I would like to again quote from the document, for the minister's benefit. It states:A common language is the glue of a cohesive nation.There is certainly no disagreement from me on that. It continues:The coalition is committed to ensuring that all migrants have the opportunity to gain the essential means of communication. We will give greater emphasis to English language and literacy services.They are not my words; they are the words of the coalition during the campaign in February 1996. What have we seen since then? Since they have come to government, we have seen over that time the fees that were paid by those people who were participating in the adult migrant education program, other than those entering Australia under the humanitarian or refugee program, increase from $2,205 to $4,405. That occurred in October 1996. From January 1997 we saw that go up again to $5,500. I believe that is a tremendous increase. I also feel that a lot more consideration should be given to those settlement programs. I have another concern. I have written to the minister on this and I thank him for his reply. I might add, by the way, as the minister is at the table—I would say it anyway—that he is probably one of the few ministers to answer all of his mail and sign it himself, so at least we know when we have made written representations to him that not only has he read them but that he is well aware of the answer that is going out. I dare to say that that is certainly not applicable to a number of other ministers I could mention in this chamber. My mail is continuing to go out, and I can tell you that there is a lot of it. But, Minister, I thank you for that. You wrote a letter to me after I voiced my concern over what had happened with the contracts for the adult migrant education classes or teachers in my area and where we were going to see changes occur with that particular group. (Extension of time granted) The group I was representing have been doing a wonderful job in migrant education as far as the English language is concerned, and the minister has visited that particular office in Fairfield on a number of occasions. However, there was a lot of concern and a lot of angst that, after what had happened when they missed out on receiving that program, perhaps the job they had done for many years would not continue to be done. I have been assured by the minister in his reply to written correspondence that I am not to worry at this stage and that those programs will continue. I can assure you, Minister, I certainly will be watching very keenly to see that the programs not only continue but also the quality of the program continues. As I said, our teachers in the English language, particularly in the Fairfield area, virtually wrote the book. As I understood it, the contracts were given out for private enterprise to participate in that and also become the director of the programs for the English language. I understand that the program that was written by those teachers in that adult migrant education service in my area and other areas like that was used as a term of a particular provision of a contract, although I do not mean a contract as such.When you are looking to privatise a service, you must have a plan against which you expect certain contracts to be able to be measured. I understand that their particular program was measured as to what can be achieved. If we are using a program that is working so efficiently and so well that we have to use that as the style in which we want private enterprise to follow, why would we give away the one that is running so well in the first place? I find that very difficult to understand. I can assure you that people in my community who are using that service on a continual basis also find it very difficult to understand. I reiterate that I am very concerned to see that our migrant people, our first arrivals, have access to legal aid. We know that that is not forthcoming anymore. With the cutbacks that I referred to earlier we have seen alterations in the power of the tribunals and the government has introduced legislation to prevent the Federal Court intervening to overturn or vary the department's decisions. Be that as it may, it leaves an extra layer which new settlers in our country, or people who wish or choose to come here, or others who have fled here, have to go through to put their case forward. It certainly takes away another level at which they can be granted assistance. How much more pressure are we going to put on people who are trying to settle in this country? Without taking up a great deal more time, I reiterate that I am still very concerned about the changes that have been made over the last year or two to the concessional family program. I am not concerned about our skilled migration program because I support what the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is doing in that area, but I am concerned about the family reunion program.In one of my earlier speeches tonight, I mentioned a comment that was made on 9 February 1996 about how family is the core. If we have people settling in this country, yet we divide them from their family when they are able to show that they can provide for their family, that comment does not ring true. I know we cannot accept everybody who applies under the family reunion program—I understand and appreciate that. But, in electorates like mine, time and time again people meet the criteria, have their medicals and are ready to have a visa issued when all of a sudden there is a cap.Again, I have written to the minister about this matter because such cases are becoming very prevalent. Families come into our office and say, `But, wait a minute, my Mum and Dad have been approved. All the family are here. We're ready to go. They have covered everything they had to. They have covered their criminal investigations and they have had their medicals. I've spent a lot of money in paying for them. I'm supporting them and I intend to keep on supporting them. But now they're telling me it is capped. When is our approval going to be given?'Of course, we have to say, `I am sorry but that is a decision of the government. You now have to reapply next year but you will still have that application pending.' Unfortunately, you also have to tell them that that particular medical check is only valid for six months. Because of the capping, because of the waits, because of what has to happen, those people have to go for further tests later on before they can come out here. That has caused a lot of discontent in that family reunion category. I have particularly been asked to express this concern because I have a large Assyrian population in my area. One of the criteria for either the humanitarian program or the refugee program is that they have to be displaced persons. Of course, the Assyrians tell me repeatedly that they have been displaced persons for 2,000 years because they have not had their country to themselves for that time. They have often wondered why they have not been given a special category. They tell me how difficult they find it to come to this country because they are in a holding pattern—whether it is in Lebanon or in Jordan. (Time expired)20:10:004780Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—At this stage I will take the opportunity to reply to some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) and the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) who spoke earlier. I will try to deal with the issues that I can clarify. Some of the other issues are matters of debate on which the government has taken certain positions. In relation to those matters, differences are obviously emerging and I think some of that came out today in question time.It seems that there is a view amongst the opposition that family reunion should be increased at the expense of skilled migration. That is the only conclusion that can be reached from a statement which says, `The program will be the same size but family reunion will be increased.' It is at the expense of skilled migration. The fact that we have a commitment to the family as the foundation of our society in no way detracts from the argument that I know the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) disputes but which holds; that is, that the great bulk of family reunion applicants who have been removed from the program—and I am talking about reduced application rates in the main—have been removed in relation to spouse and de facto partners and to parents.We made decisions—and I will pick up this point—through regulatory change and the Senate disallowed it, but we have implemented the measures in ways which the law authorises. I assert—and I have asserted it over the years, and the opposition used to assert it—that it is a matter for the government of the day to determine the size and composition of the immigration program. In fact, this was the first time we had seen regulations disallowed, with the Senate saying, `We don't think it is a matter for the government. We think it's a matter that will be dealt with on the floor of the Senate.'I encourage the honourable member for Prospect to read the discussion paper on parents that was prepared by my department, particularly in relation to the costs. I was interested in her comments about people who have shown that they are able to provide for their family. The fact is that the system was not one in which people provided for their parents. Most of the parents who were entering Australia came from countries where no welfare systems were in place—some 75 per cent—and within six months, while your provisions were in place, they were either on special benefits or on unemployment benefits. That is that case.Mrs Crosio interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—That will have occurred from the preclusion period. Ultimately, people were asking their neighbours to meet the costs. That is why the dependency issue is such a crucial issue. I can understand why, if people could bring their parents into Australia and have them on a pension or benefit, they would do so. Bear in mind that, as a matter of policy over a long period of time, we have generally taken the view that in relation to a pension eligibility there was a 10-year preclusion period. However, it was undone by the access to special benefits and the access to unemployment benefits. Those matters are brought out in the discussion paper. That is one of the reasons why we have put further changes in place. There are other points that I would like to make.Mrs Crosio interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I will. Let me just say that, if you turn to some of the budget documents, you will see that the term NFP can be found on page 132 and 133 in relation to the sale of National Rail Corporation, proceeds of ANL—Mrs Crosio interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Let me just make the point that, where matters are commercial-in-confidence—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—So are we selling it?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, commercial-in-confidence. Where contracts have yet to be finalised, there are appropriate reasons for not putting out the totality of those arrangements in the budget papers at this time. That is the reason. The nature of the scheme as it is proposed has been made clear. This is a situation in which contractors will be building a detention centre which we will lease. That is the nature of it. Over a period of time, it makes the proposal more affordable and it spreads, ultimately, the cost. The fact is that the detention centre is something that needed urgent upgrading. (Time expired)20:15:004781Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—In the last couple of weeks, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) has unfortunately undermined his own reputation, and I go specifically to the issues which are raised within the budget context. He has undermined his own reputation by attempting to misrepresent the position of the Australian Labor Party in relation to matters of immigration and multicultural affairs.We all know that the minister disagrees with the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on a range of fundamental issues. For that he is respected, even though he does not always publicly state those matters. The minister has kept quiet about the Hanson phenomenon and about the distribution of preferences, even though it is an area which is fundamentally important to multiculturalism. He has said nothing about it because he has decided not to rock the boat within the government, even though we know that he obviously has strong disagreements with the views and approaches of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson).I was surprised to see the minister quoting the other day from Among the barbarians by Paul Sheehan. I found it amazing to see the minister quoting from that book—a book which he knows is an intellectually bankrupt book based on the peddling of prejudices in relation to immigration policy and multicultural policy. And that has come at a time when, in the last six months, we have had more people coming out of the woodwork pronouncing against multiculturalism and pronouncing racist statements of all sorts. In fact, it has almost become fashionable to pronounce all sorts of things against immigration and multiculturalism. You can get on the radio programs and you can get in the newspapers. All you have to do is get up and make a story. It does not matter where the truth lies.This gentleman, Mr Sheehan, has written a book which is fundamentally flawed in every respect, and I challenge him to produce facts and figures to back up most of the things he has said. He has the cheek to attack me in the book. With what? With the fact of my having been the one who implemented the access and equity program? I understood that the minister was supposed to be supportive of the access and equity program. What has happened to the access and equity program, Minister? It has disappeared under your regime. Nothing is happening. In fact, you are allowing people who are against the access and equity program to attack the ethnic communities and to attack the program and you are saying nothing about it. That is appalling.Then we come to the question of the campaign against racism. Two years ago, $5 million was put aside in the budget, and that was repeated again in the next budget. What has happened to that money, Minister? Why has that campaign against racism not got going? We have a situation now where we have, as I have already indicated, some of the worst levels of racism and public expression of racism, opposition to multiculturalism, attacks on multiculturalism—totally unfair attacks—and attacks on individual ethnic communities. Where is the minister's campaign against racism? It has disappeared. It was supposed to have got going two years ago.We are going to have a federal election and we will not even have had the campaign against racism. That is surely a shameful thing. The minister comes in here all self-congratulatory about everything that he has done—as if there is nothing wrong with what has happened in this area. In fact, we have got a society in which multiculturalism is being attacked from every corner—when we left government, society believed in multiculturalism—and Australia is being discredited internationally for allowing these sorts of things to persist. It is not just the Hanson phenomenon. It is all of the other attacks on multiculturalism that are occurring and all of the other attacks aimed at dividing us in terms of the differences between the ethnic communities and the differences between the Aboriginal people and other Australians.The minister has a responsibility in these matters and he has not been fulfilling his responsibility. It is all very well to say that the Prime Minister's position determines this, but the minister has a responsibility. He had money allocated to be used in a campaign against racism and he has not used it. We now have a situation which is extremely serious for this country and it will continue to be so. (Time expired)20:20:004783Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—Let me just pick up some of the points made by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). If he had been here earlier, he would have heard what I had to say about the commitment this government gave in relation to dealing with racism. He might care to read the Hansard in relation to that tomorrow. I would dispute very much that we have been discredited internationally. I travel a little and I can say that Australia's reputation in these matters is undiminished in relation—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Oh!0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—In relation to what is happening—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Do you close your eyes and ears? You are the only person who can maintain this in the whole of this parliament.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—My eyes and ears are open. Let me add further that, if the honourable member had listened to the interesting comments in the Attorney-General's estimates in another place—and perhaps he might care to read them—he would have heard Professor Alice Tay, who is now the chair of HREOC, reporting that this year the complaints arising out of racist issues have fallen. They were at an unacceptably high level last year, and I do not in any way diminish that, but I think one needs to be careful to talk about these issues in a factual way.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—I challenge you on this, Minister. I challenge you to have a look at the media over the last six months and to maintain what you are saying.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am simply going by the comments given in the Senate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order!QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—We are having a debate on the estimates.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Calwell knows that he does not have the call at this stage. We will conduct these proceedings in a civilised manner. If he wants to speak again, he will get the opportunity to do so.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I will leave those matters there. Let me just say, in relation to the access and equity issue, that we have been intent on implementing that through the charter for a culturally diverse society, which is the government's statement on these matters, which has been endorsed by all ministers for application within their portfolio areas.Some other matters were raised, which I would like to pick up, if I may. The member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) raised a concern about the issue of access to benefits. The extension of the two-year preclusion period to New Zealanders ought to, in my view, be seen as a matter of ensuring that the arrangements that we put in place are non-discriminatory. It was always the government's intention to negotiate where there were agreements that arranged for other entitlements to be reviewed, but that had to be done in concert with other governments. For that reason, it took a little time.I will just take up issues in relation to the importance that we attach to programs. We have made some program changes. The access test is no longer required, and it was appropriate in those circumstances to make adjustment. The loan funds arrangements which were in my portfolio area—again, fairly modest amounts involved—for today's migration program were not suitable, which meant that it was inappropriate to continue them. But last year we did make available very substantial increases in funding for settlement programs. We put in place arrangements to enhance, through the grants program in particular, support for refugees and humanitarian entrants, and those moneys were committed again this year. We had additional funding for the teaching of English, particularly to refugees and humanitarian entrants, recognising that for people who had been tortured and traumatised there were enormous difficulties in accessing the normal teaching programs. For that reason, it was seen to be beneficial to have some pre-enrolment courses to prepare people who had come through the refugee and humanitarian programs for a structured learning course, which we saw as being most appropriate.I notice the honourable member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) has gone, but I will pick up later her comments in relation to the AME program, because I want to assure her that there is certainly no intention on the government's part through the tendering arrangements to see the program diminished. We see greater flexibility and opportunities for improvement. We were faced with significant cost increases if we had gone on with the existing arrangements, and some changes needed to be made.20:25:004784Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), in his comments on the access and equity program, said, `We've got this charter for a culturally diverse society and we're doing something about access and equity.' Let me put the facts before the House. When we were in government, there was the Office of Multicultural Affairs, and 50 per cent of its duties, roughly, were engaged in access and equity issues. The Office of Multicultural Affairs was abolished in the very first budget of this government, and all of the programs related to access and equity were abolished with it.There was then the creation of this so-called charter for a culturally diverse society in which it was said to each department of the government, `You go and implement something in terms of access and equity.' The reality is that when I was the parliamentary secretary in this area there was report after report which showed that, if departments are left to themselves to implement these strategies, they never implement them. The whole point of having the Office of Multicultural Affairs overseeing this matter was that they could report independently and objectively on this issue of whether or not access and equity was being achieved for people from non-English speaking backgrounds.Let me explain two aspects of this. The first is this question of whether, in fact, people from a non-English speaking background and from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background are able to access programs that are available or whether they are failing to do so because perhaps they do not have a sufficient level of English, they do not have enough understanding of the programs or because the department has not made sufficient efforts to get those messages across.I remember that, when the minister was in opposition, he actually referred to the fact that one of our reports criticised us. We as a government criticised ourselves during that period because we said that we had not achieved enough, given our goals in relation to this matter. That was how much was needed to be done. Instead of that, we have the abolition of OMA and we then have a situation where the minister feels that it is sufficient to allow each department to do whatever they wish with this charter for a culturally diverse society, and that is it; that is access and equity. So each department can choose to do whatever it wishes, and the departments are not doing the job in terms of access and equity. People are not getting access and equity in the proper way, and there is no monitoring of this. There is a little unit in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.As I said, 50 per cent of OMA was concerned with this matter. That has been abolished and we have a couple of people, maybe three or four people at the most, in the department of immigration supposedly looking at this whole matter when whole departments, including, I might say, senior public servants, had to be pushed to actually implement this.I even got into trouble with quite a few heads of departments because, on the instructions of Prime Minister Keating, we had to push this matter with the departments because a lot of the departments were saying, `Why should we bother with this? We have other priorities.' The fact is that you simply cannot put down a charter, like the minister has done, and say, `That's it. We'll leave it at that and we'll have mickey mouse monitoring of this situation.' How many programs has your department actually pushed through in other departments on access and equity, Minister? How many?Minister, you think that you can simply dismiss this issue with one comment. But the reality is that multicultural programs have been significantly cut back in a whole range of areas by this government, with one of the worst examples being in the area of access and equity. It is a shameful situation because people are missing out on entitlements from government departments—and not just from the Department of Social Security but from a whole range of other government departments—in relation to this matter.Let me conclude with another issue to which the minister referred, and that concerns aged people. Two years after this government was elected, we are still in the process of trying to negotiate social security agreements with a number of key countries. I have written to the minister and raised this issue, but nothing is happening with the social security agreements. They are not proceeding with Greece, Croatia, Turkey or Germany—and they are just four countries I happen to have come across because I have an association with them—not to mention a number of others that are complaining, Slovenia being one, that Australia is dragging its feet in terms of social security agreements. (Time expired)20:30:004785Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—There are a couple of matters I would like to pick up for the benefit of honourable members present. The member for prospect (Mrs Crosio) was anxious about Villawood. I reassure her that I have been quite conscious of the need to keep people informed. I did make certain arrangements for the Mayor of the City of Bankstown, the local member of parliament and one other member of parliament from an adjoining electorate—and I am sorry I did not include you—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It's actually in his electorate; it's on the border.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Yes. I arranged for senior officials to brief the two members whom I thought were the most closely affected, along with the shadow minister, on the nature of the development; to take them through the plans and show them what was intended. If it would be useful for you to see those plans, I would certainly be happy to facilitate a briefing.My second point—and I think it is important to understand this point because the principles were the same when you were in office—is that high risk posts, about which I have spoken in the context of the new charge in relation to the issuance of paper visas, require additional resources. The only way in which I could get additional resources was if I had some way of paying for them. The United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan and the countries that you have mentioned do not pose a risk. The risk factors have always been determined as—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—They have the largest number of overstayers.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, they have the largest number in absolute terms; but they also have by far and away the largest number of people who enter Australia.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—They have the largest number of overstayers, too.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—They have the largest number of overstayers, but they do not have a high overstay rate. The rate is determined by looking at the total number of people who enter Australia and the percentage who actually leave; that is what we look at. If you have a country where the overstay rate is, say, 0.3 per cent, that is significantly higher than the overstay rates that you get for the United States or the United Kingdom, most of Europe and Japan, where you are talking about 0.001 or 0.002. They are the equivalents. You have to look at those things.We have seen a fall—and I acknowledge that this has happened over time; it was happening with increasing data matching and increasing efforts in trying to locate overstayers—in the numbers of people who are overstaying in Australia; that has happened. Also, there has been an increase in the number of people who are here unlawfully who apply to stay on. But that does not alter the fact that overall the numbers have come down through efforts that have been undertaken over time—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—So why do you need this other provision?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Because there are desires to expand Australia's tourist potential in places like China and India where you have very—Dr Theophanous interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, let us understand that the sorts of people you want to come are people for whom $50 will be quite irrelevant.Dr Theophanous interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, it applies in relation to the paper visa processing and, unless the electronic travel authority is available because it is assessed as being low risk, then the way in which it operates will ensure that our interests as a nation are protected while expanding the range of opportunities that exist.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—You've lost the plot.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—If you look at China or India, you are looking at countries where there is enormous potential for overstay. If you look at the numbers of people who make protection claims, if you look at the nature of other applications that are lodged in Australia, it is an issue of very considerable dimension. I have not lost the plot at all, Andrew.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—You've lost the plot on this issue. This is completely wrong.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Because of the time that you have spent looking at these sorts of matters, you would know the enormity of the problems that we face and the costs that are imposed on the Australian community as a result of significant overstay and of abusive claims. These are matters that are best addressed at source by ensuring that we assess people's bona fides before they come. Those bona fides are assessed by Australian based officers. And it is important that we are not put at risk as we were in India recently where we had a student with TB who was able to be visaed by a local based—(Time expired)20:35:004787Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—My remarks relate to the appropriation before us of $1,500,324,000 to the Department of Social Security across a range of proposed expenditures. Specifically they relate to the application conditions attaching to youth allowance. I raise these matters on behalf of constituents who see themselves as being severely affected by the provisions of the youth allowance.I have here the letter that goes out to families likely to be affected by these provisions. It is utterly impersonal. It begins with the words `Dear customer'. I do not know where the word `customer' was coined—how somebody who is needy of income support suddenly becomes a `customer' of a department. This letter originates in Brisbane, Queensland. Some of the euphemistic jargon in this is as follows:By introducing the youth allowance, the government is making financial support for students and job seekers simpler and more flexible.It goes on to say in the next paragraph:. . . to simplify the transition to youth allowance . . . This is about denying youth allowance or income support to adults 18 years of age up to 21 years of age. In this whole measure is a deal of social engineering, in the minds of some of those who sit opposite, about forcing parents to be responsible for their adult children. They are no longer children. They are over 18 years of age. They can stand for the office of Prime Minister. They can go to war. They can engage in any activity in their own right as citizens. But for purposes of income support from government when they search for work and work is unavailable they are to be denied assistance, and it is to be loaded back on to their parents.My constituent, who I have been talking with again this afternoon, is absolutely irate. This is a family with two young adults, both aged over 18 years. As a result of the stepfather earning just over $40,000, the level of income support for his two daughters will drop back to about $15.20 per fortnight. This family has a mortgage to pay and all the ordinary expenses of a family and home to keep, and then they are suddenly told, `You have to support your two adult children. They are yours.'What this is doing is punishing these young people for being unemployed. The younger one is a year 12 student, who has worked her insides out trying to find employment, taking training. These people are adults. On public transport they pay adult fare. Wherever they go they pay adult prices for everything. They get no concessions, no benefits, no support, and they are being loaded back on to their parents. The father said to me this afternoon, `We have to pay full price for everything. I'm 44 years of age. I'm a fitter by trade. I'm supposed to support four adults.'We all know as parents that young adults eat a hell of a lot more than older adults. The younger lass he referred to finished year 12 and could not get assistance to do child care. They told her to come back in a year and she could try then, but it is placing pressure on that young person. He is saying to me, `I've done the hard yards. I'm 44 years of age. I can't work physically and manually as long and as hard as I used to be able to do. My reward for that as a battler now is to be told, "Thank you, you have to support these two young adults".' Under the government's means test that applies for the youth allowance, they are no longer eligible for assistance other than for $15.20 per fortnight.I want to raise that in the parliament to express my disgust. Here are young adult Australians, old enough to carry a gun and be conscripted and sent to war, old enough to stand for public office, old enough to vote, but they are not old enough to be entitled to any level of support for genuine circumstances which are beyond their control. They are not responsible for unemployment. They are not responsible for jobs not being available. In regional areas where I come from, like the Hunter and the central coast where my colleague the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) comes from, our level of unemployment is considerably higher than the level in metropolitan areas of Australia. We have that burden. These young Australians are being punished by this government for being unemployed. The victims are being punished rather than those who are responsible for creating the circumstances being punished. I appeal to the government and to you, Minister, to take this message back to your colleagues. (Time expired)20:40:004788Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I will not respond at length, but I do thank the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) for his contribution. We had dealt with the principal issue raised by the honourable member earlier in the debate this afternoon. The general comments I made then, I think, pick up most of the contribution that the honourable member has made, save for the correspondence he has received. I would obviously like to provide that to my colleague in another place, and I will get you a written response in relation to the appropriateness of it.20:43:004788Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I want to raise another matter in relation to the immigration program. This concerns the issue of what is happening with business migration. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) privately. I must say that when I raise these sorts of concerns with him he sends his officers around to explain things to me. I was concerned about what was happening with the business migration program from China, so the minister sent around his top officials to talk to me about what was happening in that program. That was two months ago, and I remain totally unsatisfied with what they said to me at the meeting and with subsequent matters.Let me explain the situation. All business migration applications from China are processed in Hong Kong. Leaving aside why that is the case for the moment, what has happened is that the applications received in the last 18 months or so from Hong Kong have all been held up because the department decided that, even though they had filled in the same forms as everyone else around the world, all those applicants would be sent a second letter, and they would be asked to provide a hell of a lot more detail than people are required to provide in other places.Why did this happen? The reason this happened was that the department was not satisfied with its own procedures for determining who was and who was not genuine on the basis of the information supplied on the forms. Therefore, they sent everybody a form. There was no discrimination, mind you. It was not a matter of saying, `This one is clearly a case that goes through.' Every single person was sent a form, requiring additional information.The result is that people who want to invest in Australia and genuinely want to come to Australia are all being held up. Why? Because the department in Hong Kong decided to send everybody the letter, irrespective of who they were, and required them to supply additional information. In cases that have come to my attention, some people have supplied reams of information in relation to their business investments and all the rest of it. People are not required to do that if they come from the United Kingdom or some other place.When I asked the officers of the department why we were requiring people from China to do this, the responses were amazing. They mentioned examples of managing directors of Chinese companies that may be partly owned by the state or local government. As they are not private companies, the rules that normally apply in other places and which apply primarily to private companies cannot be applied to these Chinese companies.There is a problem with this. The vast majority of companies in China are in part publicly owned, be it by local, state or federal government or semi-government organisations. Hardly anybody from China is a managing director of a company that is totally privately owned. Given this situation, you might have thought that we might try to fix this in some way by having some special or additional rules that would give some concessions to these people, many of whom are excellent and who want to come to Australia.There are investors with a lot of money, and they want to contribute their very significant managerial skills. We are talking about, in some cases, people who are running companies worth more than $15 million. Do you know what the department said? They said, `It is so hard doing it the other way. What you should really do is get them to apply not for permanent residence or the business migration visa but for the new three-year business temporary visa. Let them come here and then they can do something after that.' That was the department's reply to this situation. (Time expired)20:48:004789Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—We are coming to the end of the debate, but I will endeavour to clarify the issue. There are several new matters that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) introduced. The first relates to social security agreements. The government is anxious to press these matters, but not to press them at Australia's disadvantage. We want to ensure that there is a system in place in relation to social security agreements that benefits not only those people who leave Australia to live abroad but also those people who have lived in Australia who, for some of their life, earned their income and paid taxes in the country with which we are making an agreement.Dr Theophanous interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I was recently in Greece. I was participating with a number of ministers in explaining the sorts of issues that have to be effectively addressed.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Well, will you tell us what happened?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I will tell you that the task is one for the Minister for Social Security. You make the point that there is no activity on this front. I am simply saying that there has been activity. There was correspondence from the Minister for Social Security before the ministers in Greece that had endeavoured to press the matter further.Dr Theophanous interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I do not know, but I can find out. I took the opportunity while I was there to progress these matters as far as I could do so reasonably.In relation to the business migration scheme, let me make it abundantly clear that we want additional business migrants. We want people who are going to meet essentially the criteria that flowed from the review that was put in place by the honourable member's Melbourne lord mayor. The Deveson inquiry took place after a public accounts inquiry, where the business migration scheme was brought into very considerable disrepute. There certainly are requirements that people have to have demonstrated performance in running a business. They have to have capital. They have to be able to demonstrate that the money they have has been lawfully achieved; in other words, that they have been taxpayers.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—We know all that. What about China?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—That is the very point. China has a system that is developing today out of a communist system in which they did not have established accounting procedures and the sorts of taxation arrangements that we have normally worked with. They do not necessarily have in place—the honourable member for Calwell has made this point himself—corporations in which the capital is owned by the people purporting to be the proprietors.We have to have in place arrangements, which we have been developing specifically, for China. We are anxious to get Chinese business migrants. We are conscious that we need to get people who are successful businessmen with their own capital. A review is being undertaken by the Roach committee—that is, the business advisory panel—in relation to these matters. I am certainly happy to have my officers continue a dialogue with the honourable member for Calwell about the difficulties that we have in relation to these matters. I am certainly happy for him to put any further submissions to the business advisory panel.I do not intend to see a very important national interest program undermined, as it could well be if I degrade the criteria simply on the basis that poor China has not yet been able to develop the sorts of arrangements in which they can prove to some external party that the funds they have are their own, that they were lawfully made, that they have been taxpayers and that they have the relevant business experience. I will take advice from the experts in relation to those matters to maintain the integrity of the scheme but to maximise the numbers of people who might be able to come here.Proposed expenditures agreed to.Department of Foreign Affairs and TradeProposed expenditure, $2,172,328,00020:53:004790Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—I will not keep the committee very long, but I did want to take the opportunity briefly to raise three points and to congratulate the government on all three of those. The first two come under the purview of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mrs Sullivan) at the table, so I am delighted that she is here to hear what I have to say. The first one relates to the $1½ billion or thereabouts in overseas development assistance which I think is a very responsible approach to our aid program. It is a modest increase on 1997-98. We now as a nation exceed the OECD average and are expending something in excess of 0.27 per cent of GNP. For that, the parliamentary secretary and the government deserve congratulations for taking a very responsible approach. The second point is a subset of that and is a new program which again comes under the parliamentary secretary, and that is the youth ambassadors for development program. It is a relatively small expenditure of $10 million of which a little over $8 million is in fact a new program, the balance coming out of the overall ODA funding to which I have just referred. That will give us an opportunity, as has been indicated, to develop a pool of young Australians with knowledge of the Asia-Pacific, an understanding and appreciation of the diversity within the region and a range of lifelong contacts with friends within the region. The third point I wanted to raise is in relation to treaty making processes. As members will recall, that was the subject of the first ministerial statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) after he became the minister in which we announced reforms to that whole treaty making process. I was appalled, I have to say, to read the speech by the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) in this place last evening.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Disgraceful.OJ4Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOR—I agree. It was a disgraceful speech. It was offensive. I think we should all condemn her for what she said in that. She talked about the draft declaration on indigenous rights. She referred to that as a treaty. It is not a treaty. It is a draft. It is a declaration. She talked about all sorts of things like dividing this country racially, et cetera. She is wrong. She is misinformed. I think we should all condemn her for that. She also referred to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. In fact, several months ago I invited her to appear before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to hear the facts rather than the fiction she was generating at the time in relation to the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. It is now on the record that last Monday we tabled an interim report on the MAI which I think has put to bed her arguments of shadowy figures in the darkened corridors of the OECD in Paris making laws for Australia. Australians make laws for Australia. When the honourable member for Oxley—I am reluctant to use the word `honourable'; she is the member for Oxley as far as I am concerned—raises these things, she needs to be a little more informed. I agree entirely with what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) has said. She is uninformed. She is divisive. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said that, in relation to that speech last night, it is `dishonest' and she is `deranged', and they are the words that were used. I also agree with the Treasurer (Mr Costello) when he said that there were shadowy people choreographing her movements.The honourable member for Oxley reminds me of the little wooden wind up toy with Mr Oldfield sitting there twiddling away with the wind up. I would like to see the spring run down and the Australian people reject her for what she is—a rhetorical person with no substance.20:58:004791Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I shall respond extremely briefly, and I am sure everyone is very pleased to know that. I acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) and thank him for it. The increase in overseas development assistance of $50 million is, as he said, modest—but, nevertheless, it is welcome. These are rather difficult times in which to budget. I think the government has done well in the budget that it has brought forward for AusAID.I particularly wanted to acknowledge his comments on the youth ambassadors for development. I have been in this parliament for a very long time and in that time have been involved in a number of foreign affairs capacities. Tourism has also always been an issue in my electorate, whether I was a senator for Queensland or the member for Moncrieff. My experiences throughout have long since convinced me that the best way to build good relations between countries is to have good relations between the people of those countries. In relation to the scholarships that have long since been extended to people in our region to study in Australia, we have for some time been aware that they have paid off very handsomely in terms of relationships between Australia and the countries from which those scholarship holders came. As those people grew older and passed through the ranks of their jobs, whether in private enterprise or government, and rose to positions of some influence, the very positive feelings they had for Australia have been expressed. They have led to very good relationships, whether in trade or diplomacy, government to government. The youth ambassadors for development is a quite different venture and a very exciting one. It will give a challenge to the young people of Australia—a challenge which I am sure they will rise to—to be part of that bridge-building process between our country and our neighbours. I am convinced that the young people of today are every bit as idealistic and altruistic as ever they were. The challenge that the youth ambassadors for development program offers is one that I am sure our young people will rise to with some excitement. This program brings in a new dimension, and that is the involvement of business and institutions in a very direct way both in identifying places in countries in our region for those young Australians and in identifying suitable young people for those placements. The profundity of the linkages, in addition to those that are being built through our education programs, will I am sure stand us in very good stead. The third point raised by the honourable member for Groom concerned the contribution made by the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson)—if one could call it a contribution—in the House of Representatives last night. I will not speak at any length on this matter but I acknowledge what he says. The member for Groom is, of course, an expert on the subject of the treaty making process. He is the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties which the Howard government established to handle treaties on behalf of the parliament. He has a great deal of expertise in this matter and he speaks with great authority. It has given me no end of pleasure to refer to his committee the numerous enquiries I have received on the subject of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, although all the letters seemed to bear an uncanny similarity to one another. Nevertheless, I am confident they are being well dealt with. It is sad that we have in our midst members who will trade on the ignorance of others. But it is a fact of life. I happen to be an optimist. I believe that, in the end in human endeavour, reason triumphs. That is how one has to deal with ignorance. I hope that my faith in that rather exalted notion is not betrayed in this instance. It does not always triumph. Sometimes it takes days, weeks, years—sometimes even centuries, I am sorry to say—for reason to triumph but it does ultimately triumph. I thank the member for his contribution and commend the appropriations of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Main Committee.21:02:004792Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I wanted to raise a couple of points. One thing that is not very popular out there in the community is foreign aid. I am a great supporter of increasing the level of foreign aid to the rate recommended, which I think is 0.33 per cent of GDP.OJ4TAYLORMr Taylor—No, 0.7 per cent.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—I thank the honourable member for Groom. We are a long way from that. I do not know where I got 0.33 per cent from. The fact is the modest increase that we have had this time came off a fairly low base, the first budget of the Howard government having decreased the level of foreign aid. At the time I was very disappointed with that decrease, because if there is one area in which we have to show concern, it is in the area of helping those in third- and fourth-world conditions. We can demonstrate that by both the level of aid that we give and also—and I add this as a direction that I think the department has taken with expenditure—by especially directing aid projects to try to get the people to help themselves.It is not a case of just giving money and walking away; it is a case of establishing infrastructure, using the considerable expertise we have to establish things and then giving the people who are in these disadvantaged conditions the opportunity to reconstruct their infrastructure, to help improve their water and to plant such things as crops, seeds and so forth. Little things can go a long way. I think the NGO, World Vision, with which I have been associated for more than 25 years in one way or another, has shown the way in that. It has actually led governments to directing aid in a far wiser way and to making the dollar stretch further.It is very hard, in my view, to somehow compare our situation with the situation of those in third- and fourth-world countries. We hear this argument broadcast a lot: `Well, we've got to look after our own first.' It goes down; it is very easy off the tongue; and people get attracted to it. But, when you get down to the nitty-gritty and explain to people the conditions that women have—women who are working right until the last weeks of their pregnancy, who are having babies in the field, the umbilical cord is tied with a bit of grass that has tetanus spores on it, the baby is infected and often the baby dies—I have found that in my electorate, with people who initially burn up about foreign aid, when you explain those sorts of things they shrink back from the horror of those sorts of conditions. I think it is incumbent on us all to get that message across. But we do need to improve the level of aid. The other area I want to mention briefly is the failure of the policy of the department of foreign affairs in relation to Timor over a long period of time. The failure of the policy towards the Indonesian government has been brought out. The harvest is now being collected from the failure over a long time to deal properly with Indonesia. We have a situation where Suharto has finally been overthrown after a long time in power. The corruption that is being uncovered is absolutely horrendous. In my own electorate, a constituent approached me about how a hotel in Dili had been filched from his family by people related to the Suharto family. I had been making some representations in relation to that matter over some period of time.We have got to turn around the sort of endemic corruption that this government and previous governments have propped up one way or another by lending comfort to the Indonesian government in their horrendous takeover of East Timor and the abuse of those people. We have a real opportunity to influence policy in that area, and the department of foreign affairs have got to realise that they made a mistake over a long period of time. They have to draw back and now look positively to help the people of East Timor and advance their cause of self-determination. With those few remarks, I endorse these estimates.21:07:004793Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mrs Sullivan) spoke about how she was optimistic and idealistic. That is to be welcomed in a discussion of foreign affairs. Yesterday when I was talking about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 , I referred to the fact that a couple of views of the world have been emerging after the Cold War. One is the thesis of Professor Huntington, which says that we are all going to fall away because we will have a situation where the world will be divided and these different civilisations, as he calls them, will conflict with each other. There will be these terrible new conflicts arising in the 21st century between civilisations that are based on culture and ethnicity.In that respect, you could take the situation of India and Pakistan. You would have to say that a phenomenon like what has happened there in the last two or three weeks—not only the actual testing of the bombs but the follow-up to that, where the people were celebrating in the streets—indicates the extent to which nationalistic chauvinism is occurring. There is that negative view but, in contrast to that, there is an optimistic view that the human race will be able to come together, that we will be able to get our international affairs together, and that we will be able to build a better 21st century.In regard to what is happening with globalisation—not just of the international economy but of technology, communications, cultural traditions and all the rest of it—we have all these dramatic changes taking place in the world at the moment and I think it is very important that foreign affairs policy keeps pace with these changes. I would like to suggest to the government that one of the things we need to do in Australia is to try to bring together more knowledge and understanding of these matters. We need a think-tank of some kind to advise the government of developments and changes in the world and the implications for foreign affairs and trade policy. The universities do a good job, but there are bits and pieces being done all over the place.What we need is a good advisory unit which can give us advice about foreign policy and the directions of foreign policy into the future to tackle these issues—issues such as whether we are going to see the clash of civilisations, whether we are going to see some multicultural, multi-ethnic world, what the consequences are of globalisation and how they can be dealt with. Those sorts of issues need to be addressed, in my opinion, and I think it would be very positive if we could bring that together.There is one other matter which stems from the comments of the member for Groom (Mr Taylor). Obviously, the vast majority of members of this House condemned the comments made by the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) yesterday and their implications in terms of the damage that those sorts of comments make to our international standing.One of the things we can do by taking the opposite position to the member for Oxley is to reaffirm the importance of our multicultural society in both foreign policy and trade policy. In the area of trade policy, we can do a lot more by using people who have come from different cultural backgrounds and different countries to help to establish links with those original countries, especially trade links. I know there are examples around the world where we have tried this from time to time, but I think we should do a lot more of this. If we do, I think we will be able to achieve much better outcomes in trade policy. If we used, for example, a Hungarian Australian, a Turkish Australian or a Chinese Australian to help smooth the way in the dealings with those countries, then I believe we would be able to actually increase our trade both within the bureaucracy of foreign affairs and more broadly within the community through the chambers of commerce and so on. (Time expired)21:12:004794Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—Talk about famous last words. In my last contribution, I said that I thought this was going to be a very brief debate. I thank the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) for his contribution, which was a thoughtful and, I know, a very sincere one. I should like to very briefly respond to a couple of the points he made.As he pointed out, in percentage terms a 0.5 per cent increase in the foreign aid budget is modest, but that does not tell the whole story. It was $50 million, but that does not mean we have just added $50 million to what we were already spending money on, because each year's funding is a new program in itself. There are certain individual programs that will have ended in the previous financial year that we do not renew, because generally our programs are finite. When they end, their funding ends. So we have been able to initiate a lot of new things with money no longer needed because of programs being completed.There were some things we were locked into when we came to government—some long-term agreements—and that has taken some flexibility out of the aid program. In terms of cuts—and there has been reference to previous cuts—no greater cut has been taken than in any other area. Foreign Affairs and Trade took their share and AusAID took its share. The department had to find those cuts because of the budgetary situation when we were elected to government in 1996. I will not prolong that particular debate, though. That is one for the Treasury estimates and I might be being a little too provocative.I should would like to point out that, whilst it was, as he said, a modest increase, it was 0.5 per cent in real terms. There is $10 million for a new youth ambassadors for development program. There is a new $6 million East Asia crisis fund. Emergency funds have been trebled to $34 million. There is a $14 million—18 per cent—increase in the sector of governance and human rights, and a fivefold increase in funding for human rights activities, which I know is an area that the member for Dickson would be interested in.As time goes on, the coalition government will be able to shift the emphasis of spending into those areas to which we give priority, and I think they are areas that the honourable member would support. I also point out that we very much value the role that non-government organisations play in the matter of delivery of overseas development assistance. This year the core funding for the non-government organisation program has been increased by 13 per cent, which means that it has been increased by 47 per cent—nearly 50 per cent—since the coalition government was elected in 1996.I acknowledge the difficulties that the member referred to that can be encountered, in concept, in the community in relation to overseas aid, and there are some people you will never persuade. Heaven knows, of all the people in this parliament, I am probably the one who is out there the most, talking on it and inviting the sorts of questions and objections that the member referred to. There are some people you will never convince.But I very strongly believe that the answer to criticism of our overseas aid program is to go out and debate it, to make information available, to tell people about it, to invite their comment and their criticism and to let the Australian public feel that this is something that they are involved in. Therefore, the emphasis that we have given to non-government organisations and to that particular program is, I think, entirely appropriate. Most members could be very surprised if they realised the penetration of the issue of foreign aid in the community, and I mean this in a very positive way.Most of the churches are involved, care about it and have comments to make about it from time to time. All of the significant service groups are involved—many of them in a hands-on way—and so on. Suburban housewives are involved through local Red Cross branches. It is very broad and inclusive. The more information that we can put out about our program the better. As I said earlier, I believe reason triumphs. If you give the facts, that is the answer to it.My time is running out, although I know I can talk again later. I just want to make a very quick response to the reference the member made to East Timor. Maybe I shall wait until later. I have a feeling someone else has another contribution to make.21:17:004795Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—Could I make a comment on the East Timor issue in relation to what the honourable member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) said. Both the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) have said that our emphasis is on bilateralism, and we have strengthened that bilateral approach. Within the strength of those bilateral arrangements, it is a warts and all approach. In the case of Indonesia, the pinprick, if that is the right phrase, has always been the conditions and what has happened, albeit over 20 years ago, in East Timor.Both the Prime Minister and the foreign minister have said that we should not be afraid to objectively criticise the Republic of Indonesia in relation to human rights infringements within East Timor. So I do not agree with you that, in fact, it is something that we have left unsaid. I think on both sides of the House we have taken a similar approach. I do not think any of us support what happened over 20 years ago, but it is regarded by most people these days as part of the sovereign state of Indonesia, like it or not. If there are human rights infringements, we should criticise those human rights infringements, and they are the points that the foreign minister has made over and over again.21:19:004796Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to make a very brief contribution. I commend the government for the increase in aid, even though it may only be modest. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mrs Sullivan) says, it is not so much the size of the increase but the degree of focus that makes it effective. I did notice that $6 million was put aside for the Asian crisis.In my electorate, there are a number of building supply companies, and they have put the point to me that, in the aftermath of the riots in Indonesia, an interesting way of providing aid might be to use Australian building supplies as a form of aid. I know, generally speaking, governments frown upon supplying aid in kind or supplying actual food products, for example. I suppose this would come into a similar category, but they make a very interesting point.There will be a great need for building supplies. It is a time of civil and political unrest. Australia could make a very significant contribution to the rebuilding of those cities that have been damaged, some superficially, some more deeply. At the end of that period of reconstruction, those Australian building supplies and the companies that supply them, their engineers and the other people who might go across to see to their installation, place in that economy, and in the new administration of Indonesia, a good image of Australian building supplies and what they might do on a long-term basis for Indonesia. To be shameless about it, there is an element of promotion in it, but it could be a practical way to not so much take advantage but build on an unfortunate situation, see it fixed quickly and, at the same time, give Australian companies a promotional boost.21:22:004796Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I will respond just briefly in relation to certain remarks made by the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor), but first I will just to add to the East Timor issue. As far as Australia is concerned, apart from our concerns about the people of East Timor and their autonomy, there is a major unresolved problem that we have in this area: the death of those five journalists.Last year I met the mother of one of those journalists. The only inquiry occurring that could even approach some form of substance was the Sherman inquiry, and the Sherman inquiry failed to interview very relevant witnesses. So that particular inquiry was insufficient to clear this matter up once and for all.In my view, we now have a golden opportunity to have a proper inquiry; to send to that country a team of people who, in cooperation with the Indonesian government, could properly investigate the deaths of those journalists. I know that the matter is perhaps considered now to be old, but it is unresolved as far as Australia is concerned. In my view, those deaths have not been properly investigated. The Sherman report was inadequate, witnesses were not interviewed and the inquiry, leading to the Sherman report, was not done in the context of a proper inquest-type inquiry and investigation.So let us take this opportunity. I urge the government to make approaches to Indonesia about this issue because, as far as Australia is concerned, a gesture by Indonesia in this direction would, in my view, have a great and profound effect on the people of Australia who have long memories, and, as I say, the mother of one of those journalists who were killed. I do point to that as a significant matter in the whole scenario.But I would add also to the remarks about East Timor made by the honourable member for Groom. It has to be acknowledged, with great respect, that within the Department of Foreign Affairs—and this was said by former diplomat Jim Dunn—there has been a failure of policy advice in that area. I think it is about time that the department of foreign affairs stopped fudging on this issue and acknowledged for once that there has been a failure to give proper advice to successive governments on what occurred in East Timor. Once that acknowledgment is given, we can go forward and develop a relationship where there will be respect on both sides and one which at the same time will benefit the people of East Timor.21:25:004797Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I shall be brief. A wide range of subjects has now been raised, and I do not think it desirable to get into a general debate on foreign affairs here. I shall respond to a number of things in the appropriation bill context.I refer the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) to the book Australia's Overseas Aid Program 1998-99, in particular page 81 on which there is a section called `Types of Contracts let by AusAID'. The honourable member made a suggestion about building supplies in consequence of the riots in Indonesia. This type of suggestion is commonly made and it is not a bad suggestion; it just does not fit in with the way we run our aid program.Our aid program is run in response to requests from partner countries. That is not to say that because a country asks for something we give it to them. We have a structure in our program. It has identified priority areas, and we have a way of going about them. What I am trying to say is that aid projects are not initiated from within Australia.That said, the point the honourable member makes is correct: one of the benefits to Australia of its aid program is that, in the process of Australian concerns getting contracts to carry out that aid, naturally commercial opportunities often follow. That is different from using your aid program as a subsidy for Australian business or commercial concerns. Our aid program is about helping poor people; it is not a subsidy for Australian industry. We identify the poor people and their needs within our priority sectors, and that is the area in which we operate. We also identify the areas in which Australia does its aid best and has particular expertise.So that is the general rationale. But it does follow quite often that, when Australian companies are successful in getting contracts in the competitive tendering process, they gain expertise and get contacts in that country which can lead to other commercial opportunities quite independent of the aid program. That is to be welcomed.I believe that one of the very good things about our aid program is the number of Australians who are overseas implementing it. Whilst there is a very major component of training in our aid—and we do try to maximise the amount of training given to locals so that they have the relevant skills after the project is finished, so far as we are concerned, to continue on in similar areas—Australians nevertheless are personally heavily involved overseas. I think one of the greatest assets we have going for us in our aid program is the Australians who go and work overseas, the sorts of relationships they build up and the image they give.I will refer to East Timor fairly briefly. I am not unsympathetic to the point of view that the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) put, and I do not think anyone here is. But in the world of international politics one has to be a realist: there are things you can do and there are things you cannot do. We are a major funder of the Human Rights Commission in Indonesia. It has been very courageous in relation to the East Timor situation. For example, it was that body which investigated and brought out a public report on the Dili massacre; it has been a report from which much has flowed and on which much is based. The Indonesian government has accepted that funding by agreement with us. It is not something we have gone in and foisted on them. We have been able to establish a relationship whereby it has been possible for us to do that.We also give very substantial amounts of aid to East Timor—one of the reasons being that over time the Indonesian government, because of our good relationship with it, has known that we are not going to go in and stir up trouble.We are quite fearless in what we say and have said to the Indonesian government—the present one and the previous one—about East Timor. Indonesia knows that a factor in our relationship is that we are going to keep on pushing the envelope on the subject of human rights and democratic rights in East Timor. There are a lot of countries that could not do that with Indonesia. It is because there is substance to the overall relationship that they will accept it from us, and on that basis we are able to help people in need in East Timor. It is not a perfect situation; that I would acknowledge. (Time expired)Proposed expenditure agreed to.Department of Transport and Regional DevelopmentProposed expenditure, $231,784,000.21:31:004798Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—My remarks relate to proposed expenditure on roads through the Department of Transport and Regional Development. I am looking at the table that shows proposed expenditure in 1998-99 of $1,563.6 million. I bear in mind the comments of the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) in the House of Representatives a few days ago about expenditure on roads and about the level of fuel excise being collected.I want to say at the outset that when one looks at the estimates and looks through the documents associated with the budget one sees that there has not been an increase in expenditure on roads but rather a decrease of $28 million from last year to this year. That cut is made up of a $12 million cut in the national highway funding program, $7 million cut from grants to the states, $9 million cut from grants to local government, and, in total, expenditure on road maintenance and construction has been cut from last year's forward estimate of $1,628 million to $1,601 million.But the great casualty in road expenditure since this government came to office has been the national highway category. In the national highway category we see that in 1997-98 there was $680.1 million. Expenditure was to rise to $687 million in 1998-99. In fact, what is provided in the budget is expenditure of $675.5 million. I want to compare that with the expenditure on the national highway program in Labor's last year of office, and that was $834 million. What we have seen with this government is more gatherings from fuel excise but less money being spent on roads.The minister made great play in the House the other day of our having increased the excise on fuel from 7c per litre to 34.97c per litre. What the minister probably was not told by his advisers, or did not want to listen to if he was told, was that with the introduction of import parity pricing by a former Country Party transport minister—at that time, in 1978-79, the Leader of the Country Party—the excise on crude oil was raised from $3 per barrel, which is equivalent to 18.9c per kilolitre, to 64.53c per kilolitre in one fell strike. That was a major increase. We then had a fuel excise and a crude oil levy under the program of import parity pricing. That was done by a National Party minister. It was an exercise that was paraded for the best part of two years and promoted by the then Leader of the National Party, the then member for Richmond, who made great play of that.Subsequently, in 1986-87 the two levels of collection were combined into one and levied as an excise on petrol at the consumer end. That was the major change. One can go through the amounts being collected. They were actually indexed between 1988 and 1993. In 1993, they were increased as a result of the differential introduced between unleaded and leaded fuel. I do not think anyone would disagree with that and with the necessity to go to unleaded fuel.But in this budget we have reached an all-time low in the share of fuel excise being spent on roads. We are now in the situation where 35c per litre is collected by this government every time fuel is purchased at the fuel pump. A mere 5c of that 35c goes back to road expenditure. This was an issue on which the now minister had a great deal to say when in opposition. Now that he is the minister I would like him to do something about increasing that share of excise that is spent on road expenditure, road construction and road maintenance. This minister is the one who had so much to say about the share of fuel excise being directed to road construction and maintenance. There is no better person than him to do something about it. What we are seeing here now is an abysmal performance and an abysmal share of revenue collected from motorists being directed back to road construction and road maintenance. (Extension of time granted)The other point I want to raise under the estimates of this department deals with aviation safety. On 14 December 1995, we released the Plane Safe report, which was a unanimous report into aviation safety by the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. There were 17 recommendations in that report. I just want to touch on two major recommendations this evening. The first was:(a) the Civil Aviation Safety Authority publish serious deficiency reports on a monthly basis, initially for charter operators, commencing March 1996;That was 2¼ years ago. Paragraphs 5.30, 5.31 and those prior to 5.30 cover the background to that recommendation. But, essentially, the background is this: the charter section of the general aviation industry is the area where we, as a committee of inquiry, perceived the greatest danger to be. The market needs to know about the information that is gathered each month by Civil Aviation Safety Authority surveyors or inspectors as they do their rounds and make their inspections of various aircraft, workshops and hangars. There is an abundance of information. Some of it is of minor import, but some of it is very serious, and the public are entitled to know.It is not good enough to say that passenger aircraft are operated at a high level of safety. Whenever a person steps on board a general aviation aircraft, be it a private charter or a charter aircraft leased out to operators of business, they are entitled to expect that that aircraft is being maintained in accordance with civil aviation safety regulations. They are entitled to expect that the aircraft has been maintained within set times and that the person operating the aircraft has the appropriate credentials and endorsements to operate that aircraft.We recommended taking a very minor step forward, but what has happened in the 2¼ years since this was covered? The people who railed against general aviation safety at the time are now mute. What has happened now is that the poacher has become the game keeper. This is an extremely serious issue. In this context, I want to ask the minister about the electronic locating transmitters on board the aircraft that was involved in the recent tragedy where six residents of Albury died. A campaign was run to block the installation of fixed ELTs on aircraft. I saw nothing in the public reports that ELT signals were received from that missing aircraft. I mentioned it to somebody. They said that it did not matter because the passengers were all deceased, but that is not an answer. We are entitled to know. I want to know. I want to see action to have this recommendation implemented as soon as possible, because it tells the industry, `If you are operating your aircraft unsafely and out of time, and if your maintenance release sheet is not dotted, the public is entitled to know before they set one foot on that aircraft.' Many of us travel on charter aircraft at times.The other matter relates to recommendation (d), which reads:air operators and ticketing agents be required to provide information, at the point of sale and in a prominent place on all tickets, on (i) the name of the operator (ii) the type of operation, (iii) the aircraft type, and (iv) an explanation of the different levels of regulated safety for the different types of operation.This followed from the Seaview disaster. People are entitled to know, when they buy the ticket at point of sale, what type of aircraft they are travelling on and what standard of safety is likely to be available on that aircraft. When tickets are sold, the public may think they are travelling on a 747, a Boeing 737 or a frontline regular higher safety standard aircraft, but, ultimately, they can finish up, in some cases, on a cross-chartered private aircraft. The standard of safety on that aircraft can be much lower. I would like the minister—I do not expect it tonight—to give to the House or to me in writing a written explanation of what is happening with these two recommendations. They should have been implemented two years ago. They were capable of being implemented two years ago. (Time expired)21:41:004800Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I refer to the comments of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) on road funding. I am sure he is aware that the overall level of federal road funding in this year's budget was considerably higher than the one in the last Labor budget. I think he perhaps mistakenly indicated to the chamber that that is not the situation. I can assure the chamber that it is indeed right. This year's funding is up on last year's. Again, it is one of the largest road funding budgets on record. The government has said quite clearly that road funding is extremely important to this country.We would like to see a reduction in fuel excise charges and a greater increase in the level of road funding than exists at the moment. However, the realities are that we have been placed in an extraordinarily tight financial situation by the actions of the former Labor government. We have quite clearly said that we want to see a reduction in those fuel excise charges and that we would like to see an increase in the level of federal road funding. Let us make it quite clear what our desires are, but let us make it equally clear the reasons why they cannot be fulfilled at this stage.The interesting part about this process that we are going through today, and indeed through Senate estimates and other areas, is that the true impact of what we inherited—leaving the government aside and, even more importantly, what the people of Australia inherited and the impacts of that—is just starting to flow through now. People are starting to realise just how dramatic it was. It was not a deficit in isolation. It was a deficit that required remedial action in portfolios right across the board. The real issue here tonight is that budget deficits are more than just figures in budget documents. They affect real portfolios and real decisions.I also wanted to briefly talk about the excise question again raised by the honourable member. In the period 1983-84 to 1995-96 the former Labor government increased excise on petrol from around 7c per litre to the current level of approximately 34c per litre for unleaded petrol.Mr Cadman interjecting—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—You may well ask. Do you want me to go through those again?SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Yes.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—It went from 7c in 1983-84 to 34c for unleaded petrol and 36c for leaded petrol in 1995-96. That is extraordinary. Over the same period federal spending on roads did not keep pace with the increase in excise revenue. In fact, in 1982-83, in the period of the former federal coalition government, federal road funding represented about 60 per cent of federal fuel excise revenue collections. By 1995-96 this figure had fallen under Labor to around eight per cent. I saw the honourable member for Shortland with his calculator going madly before this started. I have worked out what it was.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—No, you're wrong.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—No, it was not what I said to you before. (Time expired)21:46:004801Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I only have one matter I wish to raise in transport, and I appreciate you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, coming to the chair to allow me to take the floor to do it. I bring it to the notice of the member for Ballarat and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Ronaldson) so it can go back to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) for investigation.What I am concerned about is that, if he has a look at budget paper No. 2, tucked away under `Transport and regional development' is the seemingly innocuous planned expenditure of $300,000 in the coming financial year for a public awareness campaign concerning Sydney's second airport. This is on top of the $200,000 the government has already spent this financial year on the same project. I would like to read from that budget paper. It states:The Commonwealth has provided an additional $0.5 million over 1997-98 1998-99 to complement and broaden the existing community consultation programme that was established to raise the levels of awareness, knowledge and understanding of the proposed second Sydney airport and its related environmental and economic implications.What does the government actually mean by `complementing and broadening the existing community consultation program'? That is the question I ask. It seems to me that it sounds like an advertising or a PR campaign, and I think I would be right. Recently the Department of Transport and Regional Development contracted the services of a well-known Sydney PR firm, Cosway, to put together a campaign to sell Badgerys Creek airport to western Sydney residents. Cosway has a long history of association with the Liberal Party.In 1993 Cosway was hired by the then coalition New South Wales state government to repackage its budget documents in a simpler and more easily understood form. That was the first time that a PR company had been used by the New South Wales government to sell its budget. Well may we ask the now Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) because the services were paid for with $160,000. Cosway has hired again in 1994 for the same purpose, only the pickings were a little richer this time. Cosway reaped the benefits of its close association with the Liberal Party to the tune of $600,000.It is no crime that an advertising or a PR company with a long history of association with a political party is hired by that party when in government. I would of course question the morality of conducting a snow job on the people of western Sydney teaching them how to learn to love the idea of having jumbo jets flying over their houses 24 hours a day, but that is an argument for another time. What is important is that any company hired by this government, especially a company with a long history of association with the senior party of this government, like Cosway, has competed for the contract with other firms. It must be transparent to all that the company in question has gone through the same rigorous channels as everyone else in tendering their application. In relation to Cosway, I now have my doubts. According now to my information, Cosway has enjoyed a longstanding and close association with the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey). The member for North Sydney has in the past shared a strong friendship with an ex-principal of Cosway, Mr Greg Barnes. As I understand it, Cosway has also done some work for the member in the past, work that was carried out, I understand, at a very affordable price. We also know that the member for North Sydney is the chair of Sydney airport community forum which is heavily relied upon by the minister for transport to advise him on all matters regarding airports in Sydney. He is also a strong proponent of Badgerys Creek airport.I am not accusing the member for North Sydney of acting inappropriately. I am not accusing him of any impropriety. However, I do suggest that there remains a question of whether he may have acted unsuitably. I do suggest that the member for North Sydney needs to come into the House at some time, or the parliamentary secretary, to answer these questions. He must outline his relationship with Cosway and tell us whether he played any part in its receiving this government's latest contract. He must come clean on whether he smoothed the waters for Cosway all the way to the minister's front door. He also must come clean on whether he helped organise this contract for Cosway as his quid pro quo for the work it had done for him in the past.I also suggest that the minister for transport release all details regarding the tendering process for this PR campaign. We need to know what other companies tendered for the contract, what prices they quoted for the job and on what grounds they were judged unsuccessful. Until the minister for transport and the member for North Sydney clarify their role in Cosway receiving this contract and until the minister for transport allows public scrutiny of the tendering process involved, doubts will remain over whether this money has gone to the company best suited for the job, however debatable that job may be, or to the company which was lucky enough to have mates in all the right places. Until they do, we are faced, I believe, with another unwelcome opportunity to question the standards and the credibility of this government.I reiterate that $300,000 is there for a campaign I believe is quite unsuitable in the first place to try to tell the people of western Sydney that they need an airport there, but most particularly, and that is what concerns me, is how this contract was furnished, how this contract was tendered for and how this contract now appears in the budget papers with the $300,000 and with the fact that Cosway already has the contract. These are questions that I believe must be answered. I understand the position the parliamentary secretary has been placed in. If he cannot answer them, I certainly would welcome answers in writing. (Time expired)21:51:004802Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I am concerned in that I rather suspect that the honourable member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) has not advised the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) that she would be making these comments tonight. The convention of the House in my eight years here has always been that, if you are going to make those sorts of allegations against another member, that person be notified.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are talking on the budget papers. We are talking about a $300,000 amount that is included in these budgets papers. I have bought in the member, which I clearly stated in my remarks. I am not accusing him of any impropriety.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is no point of order.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—The member for Prospect may want to back off at a million miles an hour in relation to the comment that she made, but may I remind her that the conventions of the House are that, if you are going to make those sorts of allegations against another member, you have the decency to advise them that you are going to do so. Some pat excuse such as, `I wasn't going to make these comments but decided to do it,' is not a reasonable excuse. I know that my colleague is keen for workplace relations to be debated tonight but I hope that the member for Prospect will leave the Main Committee chamber and reflect on her role as a senior member of this House and whether tonight she has lived up to the responsibilities that that brings with it. I will leave that be. I was going talk very briefly in relation to the question of Badgerys Creek. I quote from the Aviation Press Club on 17 February 1998 where this comment was made, `We remain committed to building an airport at Badgerys Creek, subject to the current EIS process.' The speaker at the time was Mr Lindsay Tanner, the member for Melbourne, the opposition spokesman on transport.Just very quickly in the one minute that I have left, I mentioned earlier that I saw the member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) madly tapping away on his calculator. I have worked out what he was doing. He was actually adding up the extraordinary amount that the coalition is putting in to regional Australia in this budget. I am not surprised that he would need a calculator because it is a sensational contribution to non-metropolitan Australia. Unfortunately, his calculator is unable to tell the chamber that there is $1.25 billion in the Natural Heritage Trust, $1 billion in the Federation Fund, $250 million in the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund, more than $700 million on federal road funding and a $525 million Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. It must be a very advanced calculator to start adding up quite extraordinary figures like that.This is a budget for regional Australia. It is an important budget; it is a budget that sets in place the ability of this country to start delivering to the young people, to small business, to families and to farmers. They are the ones who, at the end of the day, deserve a go. This budget is putting them in a position where they can maximise the opportunities that will be delivered to them over the forthcoming years.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Department of Workplace Relations and Small BusinessProposed expenditure, $197,511,00021:56:004803Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—My remarks relate to proposed expenditure by the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business which in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) comes to $197,511,000. I am particularly concerned about running costs which are estimated at $75,735,000. The performance of some officers within that department has led to the appalling spectacle that we saw over recent months of what is the government's idea of security. We have seen uniformed thugs, balaclavas, guard dogs, mace sprays, midnight raids on law-abiding citizens in their workplaces and vilification of members of unions, their wives and their children.Amongst all of this Australians are coming to realise that, with a government applauding, aiding and abetting Mr Christopher Corrigan to contrive the bankruptcies of his own companies so as to avoid his obligation to his employees, no working man or woman—no matter whether union members or not—are safe in their jobs. It is an ugly Australia they do not want a part of, we do not want a part of and, increasingly, the people in the electorate are coming to recognise that. What we are seeing in this action is a minister out of control and a government that has lost control. What we are seeing is a malice, a malevolence and a hatred of union maritime workers at sea or ashore that subsume their commonsense and fair judgment. I have referred to what happened at Webb Dock but, most scandalous of all, is that this government has joined with Mr Christopher Corrigan and endorsed his action of contriving the bankruptcies of his own companies in an attempt to avoid their obligations towards his own employees. The government, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Treasurer (Mr Costello), the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), officers of this department and their colleagues endorsed the expenditure of over $1 million from the taxpayer to prepare what effectively was Christopher Corrigan's battle plan.Months before the event of the night of 7 April 1998, cabinet had rushed through approval for the $240 million financing of the redundancy package that was to be utilised by Mr Christopher Corrigan. Straight through cabinet with no notice and no written submission—just a straight verbal submission. It is almost unprecedented. We know the whole operation was engineered and orchestrated from this building, even to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business announcing at 11 p.m. on 7 April 1998 the eviction of 1,400 Patrick Stevedores workers from their jobs. It was obvious on the television interviews that were broadcast the next morning that he exulted in doing it.We know that the office of the minister for workplace relations has been the major operations centre for this infamous political exercise. It is a political exercise that has cost Australian taxpayers, Australian importers, exporters and our international trade dearly. It has damaged waterfront employees and their families not only financially but also in community and social terms. We know that the former minister, the member for Hume (Mr Sharp), and his staff are now being blamed for this fiasco. But we also know that, when Minister Sharp resigned, the operation was grabbed by the minister for workplace relations and his office. They ran that operation even though I know they are trying to blame Mr John Wallis and Mr Greg Bondar, former members of Minister Sharp's office.But I believe the culprits, the zealots responsible for the fiasco, rest in the office of the minister for workplace relations. Among those are Derren Gillespie, formerly of the Department of Industrial Relations; Dr Stephen Webster, of Dubai fame; and Mr Paul Houlihan, of Mudginberri notoriety. David Trebeck has been credited with responsibility for the mad Dubai mercenary plan, but I do not think he would be involved. I have known David for a number of years and I do not think he would be involved in something like that.Let me say that corporate Australia has observed these goings on and there is no corporate leader or contact that I have across industry who has endorsed `doing a Corrigan'—that is, the contriving of the bankruptcy of one's own businesses to avoid one's obligations to one's own employees. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The corporate leaders and executives I have spoken to—and there are quite a number of them—have declared that what Christopher Corrigan did is wrong. We know it is wrong. The public knows it is wrong. The government knows it is wrong, but it supports it lock, stock and barrel. If `doing a Corrigan' was to be legitimate, then no working man or woman—union member or not, private employee or whatever situation they are in—would be safe in respect of their employment or entitlements.I have placed a number of questions to the minister for workplace relations and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) on the Notice Paper seeking information on the individual cost components of moving product from origin to final destination. I will come to those a little later. What they show me is that neither minister has the information that is needed to justify or to explain the action they have taken. (Time expired)22:01:004805Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I would also like to touch on a very similar matter to the one the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) has just raised. As honourable members would know, in March of this year, I brought in a private member's bill in which it was proposed that certain steps could be taken to protect workers. I have always said that I have never believed that the private member's bill I introduced was a be-all and end-all.What did concern me, and this is what I believe is the industrial relations aspect of this particular budget paper, is the fact that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) had actually confirmed in a press release that he was going to take particular steps regarding the protection of workers' rights and that he was going to take that to the forthcoming meeting of the Labour Ministers Council on 1 May 1998. I have a copy of the agenda paper of 1 May 1998. All of those labour ministers met at the 59th meeting in Wellington, New Zealand. You had to go to agenda item 4 to see what the minister had to say on this. He is the minister for workplace relations, the minister who was proclaiming that he had the be-all and end-all solution to the protection of workers' rights.When the Cobar miners were down here, they had to park on the lawn of Parliament House before they even got a five-minute interview with the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) of this country. When they got that five-minute interview, besides all the other promises that were made to them about that $7.9 million that they were owed in wages, one of the things the Prime Minister promised that Cobar delegation and Steven Roach of the Shearers and Rural Workers Union was, `At the very least, I will keep you up-to-date on what is happening about your claims.' Three months later, Mr Roach and those people still have not heard a thing from the PM's office.But Minister Reith said, `No, I will take certain action and when I sit down with all the labour ministers of this country, we will discuss the item.' I was very pleased to see that the protection of entitlements of employees on insolvency went to that particular meeting. When I went to find out what actually happened, I was hoping to God that we were going to get something moving in this country. I am not the first one to raise this. It has been raised in the past and nothing has been done about it, and I was hoping something would be done in the future. We go to the recommendation and it states:Because an employee's entitlements are often found in State legislation or a State award (as is the case for the Cobar and Woodlawn miners), the issue of how best to protect these entitlements is in part the responsibility of State Governments. It then states:It is therefore recommended that—and this is from all of the years when we were going to get the wonderful solution—(i) LMC recognise a joint Commonwealth/State responsibility to determine the best national approach in this area; and(ii) the matter be referred to DOLAC for detailed consideration, including consultation with all affected parties, and the preparation of a report to LMC.It is the greatest whitewash I have ever heard in my life. At least the minister, with all the support he would have Australia wide now, and surely with the support he would have from his government colleagues, should stand up and say, `It's about time we did something to protect the workers of this country. It's about time we stop'—Mr Cadman interjecting—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—What you are saying to me is that two wrongs make one right. Well, they do not. If we were wrong in the past, you are wrong in the present. For God's sake, the workers of Australia do not want to see people and governments wrong in the future and this is what you are hiding under. The bushel you are hiding behind is not the 13 years; it is your own incompetency. The bushel you are hiding under and trying to go to for cover is that you are saying now with one breath that we can preach to the workers of Australia, `Don't worry we'll look after you,' and what you are doing is sweet nothing.I believe that it is the greatest let-down to the workers of Australia who had high confidence that this federal minister would have at least gone to that Labour Ministers Council in Wellington, New Zealand, on this issue, following his press release and saying that my bill was not going to be the cure-all so let us pull it apart. I am not saying it ever was going to be the cure-all, but at least it could have been a beginning and we could have built from it. It was not a bill that I put together. It was a bill that this parliament paid to have a parliamentarian draftsman put together with the ideas that we needed to put in it.So I am really saying how disappointed the workers of Australia are. We saw on our TVs tonight the workers of the paper mill in Burnie, Tasmania. I hope they have got means to make the redundancy payments and pay the outstanding wages to their employees, because that has not happened with the rest of these companies that have gone broke around this country. That insolvency has brought trial and tribulation to the families affected. You only have to speak to some of the women still in Cobar. Their men have left their homes because they are shearing, they are doing anything, to bring a bit of money back to the family so they can keep paying their mortgage hoping that, in the future, there will be some work in that town because that is where they have established their life and their families.They were promised a lot by this government. They were promised a lot by this Prime Minister, and this Prime Minister and this government did not even have the decency to inform them three months later as to what is happening. There is nothing happening. There is nothing happening that is going to protect workers in the future. Regardless of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Cadman) thinks about what we did or did not do, we did not do enough either. I am saying that it is about time a government stood up and took the bit between the teeth and did something for the workers of Australia.22:06:004807Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—I referred earlier to the cost components of moving a container of product from land side origin to final land side destination. I asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) question No. 2843, which was:What are the schedule charge rates for (a) loading on ship and (b) unloading from ship (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type on offer by (A) P&O and (B) Patrick Stevedores at the port of Brisbane.This is a minister who has railed and ranted frenetically and abusively and who has vilified and abused workers and their families on the waterfront for month after month after month. When you ask him, `What is the cost of stevedoring a container of goods across a wharf in Melbourne or Sydney?' what is the answer? `Commercial-in-confidence in Adelaide—that is, don't know. In Botany, commercial-in-confidence—don't know. In Brisbane, don't know. Fremantle, don't know. Melbourne, don't know.'I asked further, `What are the similar costs in respect of Antwerp?', because these are ports we are trading to. He said, `Commercial-in-confidence.' That is, I do not know. For Felixstowe—the one he raves about so often—the unloading cost is $179 to $205. Port Klang, $80 to $120 for unloading. Rotterdam, don't know; commercial-in-confidence. Singapore, $111 and $168 to unload. Yokahama, don't know.All of those ports are ports with which we deal, and one would have to know the cost. I know the cost in Japan is about $250 to $280 per TEU. In Long Beach, the one he did provide, an average of $113. I then asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) what the sea freight charge was of moving from our major ports to ports of destination a TEU or a 20-foot equivalent container. To China, it is $1,300; to France, $1,970 and $2,155; to Germany and the European ports, around $2,000. USA west coast, $2,995. The east coast of the United States, $1,975; Boston, $2,550.I went through all of those ports. I then asked questions of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. What was the stevedoring cost and the land transport cost at the other end? All of those costs are absolutely relevant to this national debate about export freight costs, not picking one item and abusing the people involved there. I have done all of these figures, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will read them to you. The road transport cost in Australia, we know from published sources, to Sydney is $288; ship based charges, $29; cargo based charges, $45; customs brokers, $110.We will take the published figure from the BTCE for stevedoring, which is an average across Australia of $188. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, you know, because you know a bit about ports, and I know, that the published rate is not the paid rate. Depending on who you are as a customer and the number of ports you are using, your rate is a special rate. So it is something less than that figure. In some cases, it is as low as $70 for stevedoring a container.If it was $200, that would mean 1c per kilo of wool or 1.1 cents per kilo of meat. With stevedoring, I am taking the published figure of $188. The total is $660 Australian land side; sea freight to the US west coast, $2,995; stevedoring at Long Beach, $113. And with land transport, let us round the figures off to $232—something less than the Australian land transport cost, but obviously it would be more. That gives a round figure of $4,000. So the stevedoring charge in Australia is 4.7 per cent of the $4,000 cost.So what does the government and this minister zero in on? Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage done to our trade on the 4.7 per cent. Even in the government's own bible, the Productivity Commission report, it refers to lift charges for stevedoring as being 0.4 per cent of the total cost of moving a container to an export destination. That is 0.4 per cent in respect of an export reefer container out of Australia.Let us say the container is going to Europe and the freight charge there is about $2,000 and the other land transport charges on the waterfront in Australia are $660, as I mentioned. Felixstowe Port, I know, has a $200 stevedoring charge. Let us say the land transport is $140. The total figure is $3,000. In that case, Australian stevedoring is 6.3 per cent. We can do better in Australia, but we will do better by leadership, by cooperation, by working together, not by vilifying a segment, one of the smaller segments, of the total cost. I put these figures on the record. Some are the government's, some are published, and some the government makes policy without knowing the facts. (Extension of time granted)Let us put an end to this cant from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. He cannot produce the figures. He is on the public record of this parliament. He does not know what the costs are of stevedoring in Australia. It is not enough to say they are commercial-in-confidence. He is responsible for providing advice to government, to the nation, on waterfront costs.The most important thing in waterfront costs, in transport costs, is the total cost. As the member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) knows very well, the total cost from origin to ship side, other side, unloading and delivering finally to the customer, is not the 1c of cost in stevedoring a kilo of wool that is important. Yes, any reduction in cost is important. We all wholeheartedly want to achieve that. Reliability is a factor, but there are no costings about this because this never was an exercise in productivity. This is an exercise that has emanated out of the vile hatred of the minister for workplace relations—and anyone can see it in his frenetic behaviour in his chamber. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may not see it because you sit behind him. We see it, but let us get back to the real issue.How do we make our transport services as efficient as possible? How do we make our products as competitive as possible in world markets? Reliability is a factor. Let us sit down and work that out because all disputes finish in a solution. The magic is to get to that solution as quickly as possible, not to polarise. This government-created, government-engineered dispute and fiasco has cost this country dearly in international image. I never want to see the ugly image of dogs, uniformed thugs, balaclavas, mace sprays and police raids with batons in this country's workplaces again. That is not part of the Australia that we were born into. It is not part of your Australia—any of you in Australia. It is not part of my Australia. That must be put to an end.Let us get all of the parties involved back to sitting round the table sorting out the best way of doing things. Let us deal with the facts of the matter. I have given you the facts of the matter. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is what I borrowed the calculator for earlier, to calculate the percentages. It was not for that other foul exercise that the parliamentary secretary, the member for Ballarat (Mr Ronaldson), was referring to. I know he meant to be nice by it.I also want to say also in defence of former Minister Sharp that I know what is going on around this building. I know that he and two members of his staff are being loaded with the responsibility and blame for this fiasco. I do not believe that. I know the minister well. We have served together on committees. I do not think he is the person responsible for this. This emanated out of the minister for workplace relations and the zealots—the Paul Houlihans, the Dr Stephen Websters and the Derren Gillespies—who have had to correct evidence that was given to the Senate estimates committee only yesterday. I think the blame lies there. But, whatever it is, let us try to get this country back to normal. Let us try to get back to re-establishing our image and improving the quality and efficiency of our service as quickly as we possibly can.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.Bill reported to the House without amendment.Main Committee adjourned at 10.16 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4810The following answers to questions were circulated:4810(Question No. 2653)26534810Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Does the midyear economic review released on 18 December 1997 contain a forecast growth in employment in 1997-98 of 1.25 per cent revised from the 2 per cent stated in the 1997-98 Budget but retain the forecast for the unemployment rate of 8 per cent; if so, how can the figures be reconciled.(2) Does the review contain forecasts that the unemployment rate will fall below 8 per cent in 1998-99 and that economic growth will fall from 3.75 per cent in 1997-98 to 3.25 per cent in 1998-99.(3) Is it a fact that economic growth of 4 per cent or more is needed to reduce unemployment; if so, how can the forecasts referred to in part (2) be reconciled.4810Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), the Budget forecast for year average employment growth in 1997-98 was revised from 2 per cent to 1¼ per cent, reflecting the weaker than anticipated outcome in the June quarter 1997. Forecast employment growth over the year to June 1998 was unchanged from the Budget at 2¼ per cent. Given monthly unemployment outcomes and no change in the forecast for employment growth during 1997-98, there was no change to the Budget forecast for an 8 per cent unemployment rate in the June quarter 1998.(2) The MYEFO did not publish a forecast for the unemployment rate in 1998-99. A full set of forecasts for 1998-99 is contained in the May 1998 Budget.(3) There is no unique rate of economic growth required to produce falls in the unemployment rate, since movements in the latter will be equally dependent on population growth and labour force participation.4810(Question No. 2684)26844810Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford3J4Port AdelaideALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) How many persons are affected by changes associated with the introduction of the residential care allowance and the removal of rent assistance for nursing home residents consequently no longer able to claim the payment as a taxation rebate for medical expenses.(2) What is the estimated saving to the Commonwealth from the measure for 1997-98.4810Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) From 1 January 1997 until 30 September 1997, pensioners living in nursing homes were eligible for Residential Care Allowance (RCA), with the rates and eligibility the same as for rent assistance.From 1 October 1997, RCA was replaced with the pensioner supplement, paid directly to service providers. This change affected all nursing home pensioner residents. The total number of nursing home residents for September 1997 averaged 71,326, of which around 90 per cent are estimated to be pensioners.Also, from 1 October 1997, the basic daily care fee for pensioner nursing home residents was reduced (from 87.5 per cent of basic age pension plus RCA to 85 per cent of basic age pension) to compensate for the loss of RCA.As income, RCA was not an expense, and as such the RCA payment itself could not be claimed under the medical expenses rebate. Only qualifying expenses can be claimed under the medical expenses rebate.It is not possible to estimate resident numbers who used their RCA to pay their fees and who claimed their nursing home expenses under the medical expenses rebate.However, this number would be small. Most residents who previously received RCA are full rate pensioners, and therefore have no tax liability from which to offset the medical expenses rebate.(2) RCA was abolished from 1 October 1997, with both the basic daily care fee for nursing home residents reduced, and the replacement pensioner supplement introduced, as compensation.4810(Question No. 2695)26954810Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Will ex-servicemen with 30 days continuous service in an operational area be eligible to receive the Australian Service Medal 1945-75.(2) Has Naval Personnel Services advised a number of ex-servicemen that they would be eligible for the Austral ian Service Medal 1945-75 Clasp Minesweeping; if so, how many veterans received the advice.(1) Has the clasp been formally gazetted; if so, when; if not, how will the veterans be recognised.4811Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. If the area is prescribed for the purpose of an award of the Australian Service Medal 1945-75.(2) Yes. Some 40 veterans were advised that the Australian Service Medal 1945-75 with Clasp `Minesweeping' would be awarded. This included the then President of the Returned and Services League of Australia, Major General James, in December 1996.(3) A Clasp `Minesweeping' will not be formally gazetted. However, eligibility for the Australian Service Medal 1945-75 with Clasp `S W Pacific' to include minesweeping activities and bomb and mine clearance duties has been extended to include those eligible personnel. A formal Instrument of declaration and determination was approved by the Governor-General on 16 April 1998.I refer the honourable member to my Media Release of 24 April 1998 which states, quote:"Approval to extend the provisions for eligibility of the award of the Australian Service Medal 1945-75 with Clasp `S W Pacific' was announced by the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, Bronwyn Bishop MP."I am delighted to announce that recognition can now be given to those Australian Defence personnel who undertook minesweeping and bomb and mine clearance duties after World War II and missed out on an Imperial Naval General Service Medal or General Service Medal at the time," said Mrs Bishop."These Imperial awards which provided recognition could only be earned if 180 days qualifying service was rendered. It is this Government's policy that certain service of 30 days or more should attract the Australian Service Medal 1945-75. Those who did qualify for an Imperial award for minesweeping and bomb and mine clearance duties, however, will not be entitled to the Australian Service Medal 1945-75 in recognition of those duties."Mrs Bishop said that the extension of eligibility resulted from a review carried out by the Interdepartmental Committee on Defence Honours and Awards, which consists of representatives from Government House, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.The review identified that duties carried out in the South West Pacific were comparable to those of the British Occupation Forces in Japan which consisted of a wide range of duties, including minesweeping and bomb and mine clearance. Accordingly, those Service personnel who served in the Netherlands Indies, Portuguese Timor, Moratai Island, Sarawak, Brunei, British Borneo, Philippine Islands, Solomon Islands, Nauru and Ocean Islands, Burma, Malaya, Singapore, the Queensland coast and waters off the coast of China and the South West Pacific, for varying periods between from 3 September 1945 to 10 November 1956, will be eligible.The medal will be awarded for 30 days continuous service during the eligibility periods." unquote.4811(Question No. 2759)27594811McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) How many persons have worked in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility under a contract for services entered into with a firm whose sole or predominant business is the hiring of labour to clients (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(2) In what sections of the department, agency, authority or company were the persons referred to in part (1) employed.(3) What are the names of the labour-hire firms referred to in part (1) which provided services (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(4) How were the labour-hire firms selected.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.(6) Will the Minister provide a copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders.(8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.(9) What total sum (a) is owed and (b) was paid to each labour-hire firm.(10) What total sum was paid to labour-hire firms in total (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(11) What projected labour requirement will be met by labour-hire firms in the departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities or companies, including government business enterprises, for which the minister has portfolio responsibility from (a) February to June 1998 and (b) July 1998 to June 1999.(12) How many government employees have been replaced through labour provided by labour-hire firms in each department, agency, commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility.4812Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1), (2), (11) and (12) The attached table summarises available information. I have not included the Australian National Railways Commission, which is in wind-up and I am not prepared to authorise that agency to allocate the resources to compile an answer.(3)—(10) Given the level of detail sought and the difficulty in accessing such information, I am not prepared to authorise my Department to allocate the resources to compile it.DoTRDCivil Aviation Safety AuthorityAirservices AustraliaNational Capital Authority(1)(a) 61 (b) 29(a) N/A (b) ~74(a) 380 (b) 170(a) 1 (b) 5(2)Aviation Operations, Aviation Policy, Land Transport, Federal Office of Road Safety, Territories and Local Government, Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, Corporate.Airworthiness, Flying Operations, Personnel Licensing, Airways and Airspace Standards, Regulatory Framework Review, Airways Surveillance, High Capacity Air Transport, Aviation Safety Promotion, Director's office, Corporate Relations, Finance, Legal, Information Management, Human Resource ManagementAir Traffic Services, Corporate Audit, Corporate & Employee Relations, Flying Unit, Rescue and Firefighting Service, Facilities Management, Corporate Finance, Projects, Planning and DevelopmentCorporate Relations and Corporate Services(11)(a) 1 planned, others as normal staffing relief arrangements necessitate (b) N/ACASA is about to commence an organisation restructure, and cannot easily estimate the need for temporary staff.(a) Approx. 60 (b) Approx. 20(a) 4 positions (b) 3 positions(12)NilNilNilFour4812(Question No. 2795)27954812Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 March 1998:(1) Does his Department cooperate with other Commonwealth departments in deciding whether Australia is to become a party to the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague 1954).(2) Does his Department have to consult with State and Territory governments and agencies in deciding whether Australia is to become a party to the protocol; if so, with which State and Territory governments and agencies has his Department consulted and on what dates, in what form and with what outcomes.4812McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. A number of Departments have a continuing interest in Australia ratifying the Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. These Departments include the Department of Defence; the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Department of Communications and the Arts; and the Attorney-General's Department. (2) Yes. Before Australia ratifies any treaty or related instrument, consultation with all State and Territory governments is required at various stages in the treaty-making process. Such consultations are yet to take place.4813(Question No. 2818)28184813Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2524 (Hansard , 10 March 1998, page 651) regarding a contract with Sirway Asia Pacific, has purchase order 2580040AC for the supply of crockery been completed as required by the due date of 20 January 1998; if so, what remains to be supplied.(2) Do penalties apply to late delivery; if so, (a) what are they and (b) have they been applied.(3) Have officers of his Department visited Sirway Asia Pacific's sites in Australia; if so, (a) which sites, (b) on what dates and (c) what reports were made to his Department.(4) Is his Department able to supply documentary evidence of its monitoring of Sirway Asia Pacific's compliance with quality assurance clauses in the standing offer; if not, why not.4813McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is:(1) The crockery against Purchase Order 2580040AC was delivered on 8 May 1998. Contract samples were approved on 16 January 1998 and the contractor had until 15 May 1998 to finalise the initial order.(2) Yes.(a) Clause 8.1 of the contract states "If the contractor is responsible for delivery being delayed more than 10 working days beyond the due date specified in the Contract he should contact the Ordering Authority for approval otherwise the Commonwealth is, without prejudice to any rights that would otherwise accrue under the Contract, entitled to recover from the Contractor a discount of 2% per week in respect of the period by which the delivery of conforming supplies exceeds the specified due date of the contract".(b) The penalty for late delivery was waived for the inital order as it was agreed to give the contractor additional time for tooling up, ie to 15 May 1998. The contractor has been advised there will be no such extension for future orders.(3) Yes.(a) Clifton Hill Victoria; (b) April 1997; (c) It was reported that the storage facilities were suitable for storage of crockery.(4) The Department has documentary evidence of its monitoring of the contract's compliance with Quality Assurance clauses in the standing offer. This information is considered to be Commercial-In-Confidence and, as such, cannot be released.4813(Question No. 2869)28694813Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2663 (Hansard , 31 March 1998, page 1441), to what countries has the Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) been introduced.(2) How does his Department define low risk nationalities and what criteria are used.(3) How often is the decision to grant an ETA reviewed by his Department and what criteria are used.(4) Does his Department undertake checking of boarding passes and passport matching in countries where the ETA has been introduced; if so, what are the details; if not, what is the nature of monitoring passengers boarding flights to Australia.(5) From which countries did the (a) 202 and (b) 351 persons referred to in part (3) of the answer to question No. 2663 come.(6) Has his Department discerned a changing pattern between the two program years referred to in the answer to part (3) of question No. 2663.(7) In what year did Singapore Air Terminal Services (SATS) take over checking boarding passes and passport matching for flights to Australia.(8) Why was the role transferred to SATS.(9) How many persons travelling by air from Singapore have been refused entry at Australian airports since SATS took over the role and from what countries did they come.(10) Has his Department discerned a changing pattern in arrivals since SATS took over the role.(11) Have officers of his Department commented on problems since SATS took over the role; if so, (a) on how many occasions, (b) with what frequency, (c) what was the nature of the comments and (d) what action did he or the Secretary of his Department take in response.(12) How many persons have been refused entry at Australian airports in the current program year and from what countries did they come.(13) To what countries do the arrangements involving the authorised travel agents referred to in the answer to part (1) of question No. 2663 apply.(14) Have the arrangements been cancelled in respect of an authorised travel agent; if so, in each case, (a) in what year were the arrangements (i) established and (ii) cancelled and (b) why were they cancelled.4813Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Electronic Travel Authority is available to Citizens of the following 26 countries: Andorra; Austria; Belgium; Brunei; Canada; Denmark; Finland; Germany; Greece; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Japan; Liechtenstein; Luxemburg; Malaysia; Malta; Monaco; Netherlands; Norway; Singapore; South Korea; Sweden; Switzerland; United Kingdom; United States of America(2) In determining if a nationality is of `low risk' established indicators which are able to provide a measurable risk assessment are assessed in each instance. These are:. rates of overstay. rejection rates covering visitor and Temporary Business Entrant applications. rate of change of class applications following entry to Australia. refused entry rates. application rates for bridging visas. application rates for protection visas.(3) The issue of an ETA is an automated process which involves the computer matching of biodata of an applicant against immigration data bases containing lists of persons adversely known to the Department. If the biodata matches with a record held in an immigration data base then the ETA is not issued by this automatic process.A further matching procedure is carried out when the record of the ETA issue is loaded into the immigration visa data base for future use at the time the ETA holder undergoes boarding procedures overseas and again during arrival procedures in Australia.(4) No. It is the airlines' responsibility to ensure that only passengers carrying proper travel documentation are uplifted. Failure to comply is a breach of Section 229 of the Migration Act for which the airline as an alternative to prosecution may pay a fine. The details of passengers who claim to have been granted an ETA are checked by the airlines through a computerised checking system to ensure that a visa has been granted.(5) (a) The 202 persons travelling by air from Singapore who were refused entry at Australian airports this financial year (as at 28 February 1998) came from 40 countries: Sri Lanka (43), People's Republic of China (17), Thailand and Iraq (16 each), Somalia (15), Kuwait (14), India (12), Malaysia (6), Bangladesh,Turkey and Iran (5), Algeria (4), Hong Kong (3), Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Ghana, Lebanon, Nepal, Pakistan, Romania, Singapore, Syria, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Zaire (2), France, Egypt, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Slovenia, South Africa, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Stateless (1).(b) The 351 persons travelling by air from Singapore in 1996/97 who were refused entry at Australian airports came from 37 countries: Sri Lanka (112), People's Republic of China (46), Somalia (28), Thailand (25), Iraq (22), Indonesia (20), Kuwait (11), India (10), Bangladesh (8), United Kingdom (6), Algeria, Iran, South Africa (5), Nigeria and South Korea (4), Malaysia (3), Bulgaria, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Morocco, Nigeria, Syria, Turkey (2), Albania, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Kenya, Lebanon, Myanmar, Philippines, South Africa, Sudan, Vietnam, Yugoslavia (1), Stateless (8).(6) The latest figures available (as at 30/4/98) confirm that the number of inadmissible passengers arriving from Singapore is continuing to decline. The total number of inadmissible passengers refused entry at Australian airports is however increasing.(7) It is not known when SATS started checking boarding passes and passport matching for some airlines' flights to Australia.(8) It is a matter for the commercial judgement of airlines as to whether they use their own employees to conduct checking of boarding passes and passport matching for flights to Australia or whether they contract the services of SATS for this purpose.(9) Figures are not kept which would enable the question to be answered.(10) Although it is not known when SATS started checking some flights to Australia, over the last two years the figures would indicate that there has been a downward trend in movements of inadmissible passengers from major source countries.(11) My Department's Airline Liaison Officer in Singapore noted in May last year that a small number of passengers had recently passed through SATS checks undetected. This was brought to the attention of SATS management by our Airline Liaison Officer.(12) As at 30 April 1998, this financial year 1272 persons were refused entry at Australian airports. They came from the following countries: People's Republic of China (220), Indonesia (118), Iraq (114), Sri Lanka (108), Somalia (72), Thailand (61), New Zealand (48), Algeria, Kuwait (46), Iran, United Kingdom (39), South Korea (31), Philippines (28), India (21), Malaysia (19), Hong Kong (17), Colombia (16), Pakistan (13), USA (11), Bangladesh (10), Germany (8), Afghanistan,Ghana, Sudan (7), Ireland, Lebanon, Netherlands, Singapore, South Africa, Tonga, Turkey (6), Albania, Cambodia, Canada, France, Israel, Japan, Taiwan (5), Fiji, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Romania, Syria, Vietnam (4), Brazil, Chad, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Russia (3), Angola, Austria, Ecuador, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Uganda, Yugoslavia, Zaire, (2) Argentina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Greece, Italy, Ivory Coast, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Norway, Portugal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Uruguay, Stateless, Unknown (1).(13) Arrangements for authorised travel agents have been or are operating in 32 countries. Since the implementation of ETA many of the agency arrangements have been made redundant in those countries. The 32 countries are: Austria; Canada; Czech Republic; Denmark; Finland; Former Yugoslavia; Germany; Greece; Gulf States (6 countries); Hong Kong; Indonesia; Italy; Japan; Malaysia; Netherlands; Norway; Singapore; Slovenia; South Africa; South Korea; Sweden; Switzerland; Taiwan; Tahiti; Thailand; United Kingdom; USA.In the case of Hong Kong, in addition to normal agency arrangements for Hong Kong residents and other approved nationalities, special arrangements exist with one office of the China Travel Service (CTS) located in Hong Kong to process a limited number of visitor applications (usually for tour groups) from Chines residents of the Guangdong Province. These visas and the travel of the recipients are monitored by the Australian Consulate-General Hong Kong.(14) Yes.(a) (i) 1995; (ii) 1996.(b) The agency in Greece had issued a visa in direct contravention to instructions given by the Migration Office of the Australian Embassy, Athens.4815(Question No. 2965)29654815McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) What sum has the Commonwealth offered New South Wales under the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement.(2) What period does the offer cover.(3) What sum will the Commonwealth pay in each year covered by the agreement.(4) What sum will New South Wales provide to disability services in the period referred to in each year covered by the agreement.4815Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement which New South Wales signed on Friday 22 May 1998 included the following contributions in 1997-98 amounts:(1) $558.414 million.(2) 1997-98 to 2001-2002.(3)1997-981998-991999-20002000-012001-02$M$M$M$M$M104.292107.809111.539115.394119.380(4) New South Wales has indicated that it will provide:1997-981998-991999-20002000-012001-02$M$M$M$M$M313.61314.18314.18314.18314.184815(Question No. 2966)29664815Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:Is he able to say what revenue in State and Territory taxes was derived by each State and Territory from gambling in (a) 1995-96 and (b) 1996-97 (i) in total and (ii) under each form of gambling.4815Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Type of Tax 1995-96NSWVICQLDSAWATASNTACTCWTHTOTAL$ millionGovernmentLotte ries2590 (a)189717901140613 Private Lotteries1229800021080339Gambling Machines4495091641090002601257Casino Taxes63110771865215810377Race Betting Taxes32612290344512760642Gambling nec*7012000100083Total11791051520232189552352103311Type of Tax 1996-97NSWVICQLDSAWATASNTACTCWTHTOTAL$ millionGovernmentLott eries2450 (a) 186727601050594Private Lotteries1527400019070315Gambling Machines5346261861331002601506Casino Taxes86128831859311043422Race Betting Taxes32812192513411770651Gambling nec*28000100011Total1210115754727417062274933499(a) No Government lotteries operatednec* Not elsewhere classified